SEP UH-60M Baseline 9mar07 PDF

UH-60M Black Hawk
Block 1 Modernization Program
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)

for
UH-60M Baseline Full Rate Production Decision Review and
UH-60M Upgrade In Process Review
2 March 2007
OSD Approval
_____________________ __________
Mr. Kenneth J. Krieg Date
OUSD(AT&L)
UH-60M Systems Engineering Plan
SYSTEM ENGINEERING PLAN (SEP)

FOR THE
BLOCK 1, UH-60M BLACK HAWK MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Milestone C
10 February 2005
OSD Concurrence
_____________________________ _________
DAVID R. CASTELLANO DATE:
Deputy Director
OUSD(AT&L) DS/SE/AS
ii
Document History Log

Status
(Baseline/ Document Effective
Description
Revision/ Revision Date
Canceled)
Draft 1 NA 30 April 2001 Submitted IAW previous SEMP formats
Draft 2 NA 30 August 2004 Draft submitted for MS C OSD review
Draft 3 NA 1 February 2005 Draft submitted for MS C OSD review
Final Draft NA 10 February 2005 Final Draft submitted for MS C OSD review
Final NA 25 February 2005 Final Version submitted for Signature
Post MS C Revised Version submitted IAW SE Plan Preparation Guide
and Pre IPT NA 30 June 2005 v0.95 May 10, 2005 with OSD/PEO Comments and includes
Final an appendix for the UH-60M Upgrade Program
Baseline /
Upgrade
NA 11 July 2005 Revised Version includes PEO Aviation (UAH) comments
with PEO
Comments
Baseline
NA 02 Mar 2007 Includes program updates since MS C decision
pre FRP
iii
UH-60M Modernization System Engineering Plan (SEP) Change Record for

2 March 2007 Update
List of changes to UH-60M Black Hawk Block 1 Modernization Program SEP
1. Changed cover page to reflect new date

2. Change table of contents to reflect survivability paragraphs
3. Changed Document History Log
4. pg 9 Updated ASR signature date
5. pg 10 Updated AVNS-PRF-10002 to current revision
6. pg 11 Updated technical status of program
7. pg 13 Updated Fig 2 UH-60M Baseline/Upgrade Acquisition Schedule
8. pg 23 Update results from OT
9. pg 24 changed table 2 to reflect actual Reliability Performance as of IOT.
10. pg 29 added Force protection and Survivability KPP’s
11. pg 29 renumbered Reliability paragraph
12. pg 30 changed 2.2.3.1 to reflect completion of phase 2 SSAA.
13. pg 32 Updated Figure 6 UH-60M Baseline IPT Structure
14. pg 65 Updated TPM table
15. pg 66 Updated software metric table
16. pg 86 Updated AMRDEC acronym
17. pg 89 Corrected HMU acronym
List of changes to the UH-60M Black Hawk Upgrade Modernization Program SEP Appendix A
1. Removed Initial Draft from the Title Page

2. pg 159 Updated technical status
3. pg 159 Updated Figure A-2 UH-60M(Upgrade) Program Schedule
4. pg 160 Updated Common Development efforts (JACS, CMWS, Improved Stab Act,
FADEC, CTC/CTRDS)
5. pg 167 Corrected identification of acronym “HMU”
6. pg 170 Updated Figure A-3. UH-60M Upgrade IPT Structure
7. pg 176 Updated Figure A-5 Compliance Matrix
8. pg 176 Added explanation for system level do not complies
9. pg 177 Paragraph A-2.4.1.6.1 Requirements Management Tools - CORE(tm)- Deleted
10. pg 181 Updated Technical Performance Measures (TPM)
11. pgs 182 thru 185 Provided completion status of SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Program Description and Applicable Documents............................................................................................1
1.1.1 UH-60M Modernization Program Description .........................................................................................1
1.1.1.1 UH-60M Baseline Program...............................................................................................................2
1.1.1.2 UH-60M Upgrade Program...............................................................................................................3
1.1.1.3 UH-60M Block 2...............................................................................................................................4
1.1.1.4 System Description ...........................................................................................................................4
1.1.2 Applicable Documents..............................................................................................................................9
1.1.3 Program Statutory and Regulatory Requirements...................................................................................11
1.2 Program Technical Status ..............................................................................................................................11
1.3 Approach for SEP Upgrades ..........................................................................................................................11
2.0 Systems Engineering Application to Life Cycle Phases .................................................................................11
2.1 Life Cycle Phases............................................................................................................................................13
2.1.1 Pre-SDD Phase (Risk Reduction Phase) .................................................................................................13
2.1.2 SDD Phase (Integration and Qualification Phase) ..................................................................................14
2.1.3 Production and Deployment Phase (PD) ................................................................................................15
2.1.3.1 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)................................................................................................15
2.1.3.2 Full Rate Production (FRP).............................................................................................................16
2.1.3.3 Production and Quality ...................................................................................................................16
2.1.3.4 Product Assurance...........................................................................................................................19
2.1.3.5 System Evaluation...........................................................................................................................20
2.1.3.6 Reliability and Maintainability........................................................................................................23
2.1.4 Operation and Sustainment Phase (O&S) ...............................................................................................26
2.2 System Capabilities, Requirements, and Design Considerations ...................................................................26
2.2.1 Capabilities to be Achieved and Operational Concepts ..........................................................................26
2.2.2 Key Performance Requirements (KPP) ..................................................................................................28
2.2.2.1 KPP1 External Load........................................................................................................................28
2.2.2.2 KPP2 Net-Ready .............................................................................................................................29
2.2.2.3 Force Protection ..............................................................................................................................29
2.2.2.5 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................29
2.2.3 Certification Requirements .....................................................................................................................30
2.2.3.1 DoD Information Technology Security Certification & Accreditation Process (DITSCAP) .........30
2.2.3.2 J6 Interoperability & Supportability Certification ..........................................................................30
2.2.3.3 Interoperability Certification issued by the Central Technical Support Facility .............................30
2.2.3.4 Spectrum Certification Compliance ................................................................................................30
2.2.4 Design Considerations ............................................................................................................................30
2.3 Systems Engineering Organizational Integration...........................................................................................31
2.3.1 UH-60M Chief Engineer.........................................................................................................................31
2.3.2 DCMA Engineering ...........................................................................................................................31
2.3.3 IPTs.........................................................................................................................................................31
2.3.3.1 UH-60M Baseline IPT Structure.....................................................................................................32
2.3.3.2 Contractor Organization..................................................................................................................33
2.4 Systems Engineering Process .........................................................................................................................39
2.4.1 Requirements ..........................................................................................................................................40
2.4.1.1 Requirements Development/Analysis ..................................................................................................40
2.4.1.2 Functional Analysis.........................................................................................................................42
2.4.1.3 Synthesis .........................................................................................................................................43
2.4.1.4 Requirements Verification .............................................................................................................44
vi
2.4.1.5 Requirements Flowdown.................................................................................................................45

2.4.1.6 Tools and Resources .......................................................................................................................46
2.4.2 Modeling and Simulation (M&S) ...........................................................................................................48
2.4.2.1 Modeling and Simulation Tools ......................................................................................................48
2.4.3 Trade Studies and Assessment................................................................................................................52
2.4.3.1 Trade Study Identification................................................................................................................52
2.4.3.2 Trade Study Process. .......................................................................................................................53
2.4.3.3 Generate & Document Trade Objective..........................................................................................53
2.4.3.4 Selection of Alternatives .................................................................................................................53
2.4.3.5 Checking Against Requirements & Allocations..............................................................................54
2.4.3.6 Identification of Design Impacts .....................................................................................................54
2.4.3.7 Evaluation of Impacts......................................................................................................................56
2.4.3.8 System Optimization .......................................................................................................................56
2.4.3.9 Results .............................................................................................................................................57
2.5 Technical Management and Control ..............................................................................................................57
2.5.1 Interface Management.............................................................................................................................58
2.5.1.1 Interface Identification ....................................................................................................................59
2.5.1.2 GFE Interface Control.....................................................................................................................59
2.5.1.3 Subcontractor Interface ...................................................................................................................59
2.5.2 Configuration Management ....................................................................................................................59
2.5.2.1 Configuration Changes.....................................................................................................................62
2.5.2.2 Change Coordination .......................................................................................................................62
2.5.2.3 Specification Maintenance ...............................................................................................................63
2.5.2.4 Requirement Traceability ................................................................................................................63
2.5.2.5 Requirement Verification/Substantiation .........................................................................................63
2.5.2.6 Data Management ............................................................................................................................63
2.5.3 Technical Objectives...............................................................................................................................64
2.5.3.1 Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) ......................................................................................64
2.5.3.2 Critical Technical Parameters .........................................................................................................66
2.5.3.3 Measures of Effectiveness...............................................................................................................66
2.5.4 Requirements Traceability ......................................................................................................................66
2.5.5 Overview of Government and Contractor Data Rights...........................................................................67
2.5.6 Technical Reviews ..................................................................................................................................67
2.5.6.1 System Requirements Review (SRR)..............................................................................................69
2.5.6.2 Air Vehicle Preliminary Design Review (PDR) .............................................................................69
2.5.6.3 System Preliminary Design Review (PDR) ....................................................................................70
2.5.6.4 Air Vehicle CDR.............................................................................................................................71
2.5.6.5 System Critical Design Review (CDR)...........................................................................................72
2.5.7 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) ........................................................................................................74
2.5.8 GFE Management .....................................................................................................................................74
2.6 Integration with Other Program Management Control Efforts........................................................................74
2.6.1 CAIV........................................................................................................................................................74
2.6.1.1 Cost Reduction and Avoidance Initiatives .......................................................................................74
2.6.1.2 Contract Types ................................................................................................................................75
2.6.1.3 Production Phase Objectives............................................................................................................76
2.6.1.4 O&S Phase Objectives .....................................................................................................................76
2.6.2 Risk Management ...................................................................................................................................76
2.6.2.1 Execution..........................................................................................................................................77
2.6.2.2 Risk Mitigation.................................................................................................................................80
2.6.3 Earned Value Management.....................................................................................................................80
2.6.3.1 Organizing and Staffing ..................................................................................................................81
2.6.3.2 Planning ..........................................................................................................................................81
2.6.3.3 Directing..........................................................................................................................................82
2.6.3.4 Controlling ......................................................................................................................................82
vii
2.6.4 Leveraging Other Efforts ........................................................................................................................83

2.6.4.1 Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System ...................................................................................83
2.6.4.2 Army Mission Planning Software/Joint Mission Planning Software (AMPS/JMPS).....................84
2.6.4.3 Improved Data Modem (IDM) ........................................................................................................84
2.6.4.4 Composite Stabilator .......................................................................................................................84
2.6.4.5 Air Warrior......................................................................................................................................84
2.6.4.6 IHUD...............................................................................................................................................84
2.6.5 Airworthiness Qualification....................................................................................................................85
3.0 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................................85
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................................86
Attachment 1. Statutory and Regulatory Information Requirements ................................................................94
Attachment 2. IPT Charters ..................................................................................................................................100
Attachment 3. Work Breakdown Structure.........................................................................................................122
Attachment 4. Critical Technical Parameters (CTP) ..........................................................................................132
Attachment 5. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)................................................................................................136
Attachment 6. Trade Study Decisions...................................................................................................................140
Attachment 7. Risk Mitigation Example ..............................................................................................................147
Attachment 8: Technical Review Summary.........................................................................................................149
Appendix A: UH-60M Upgrade Program Systems Engineering Plan...............................................................151
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. UH-60M BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS 5

FIGURE 2. UH-60M BASELINE/UPGRADE ACQUISITION SCHEDULE 13
FIGURE 3. SDD EXIT CRITERIA 15
FIGURE 4. UH-60M BASELINE INTEGRATION/QUALIFICATION PROGRAM
TEST SCHEDULE 20
FIGURE 5: MTBEMA RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN 25
FIGURE 6. UH-60M BASELINE IPT STRUCTURE 32
FIGURE 7. SIKORSKY ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE 34
FIGURE 8. UH-60M SYSTEM ENGINEERING PROCESS 40
FIGURE 9. REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS PROCESS 41
FIGURE 10. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCESS 43
FIGURE 11. SYNTHESIS PROCESS 44
FIGURE 12. UH-60M SPECIFICATION TREE 46
FIGURE 13. UH-60M CORE SOFTWARE DATABASE 47
FIGURE 14. UH-60M TRADE STUDY PROCESS 53
FIGURE 15. UH-60M TRADE STUDY EVALUATION WEIGHTINGS 56
FIGURE 16. SYSTEM DESIGN OPTIMIZATION 57
FIGURE 17. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 62
FIGURE 18. RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS 77
FIGURE 19. RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS 79
FIGURE 20. RISK AREAS 80
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. EMRL 4 CRITERIA 18

TABLE 2. RAM CHANGES FOR MTBMAF, MTBEMA 24
TABLE 3. FLIGHT HOURS ACCRUED 25
TABLE 4. BLOCK 1 SIMULATIONS, MODELS AND TESTBEDS MATRIX 49
TABLE 5. UH-60M TRADE STUDY PARAMETERS AND METRICS 55
TABLE 6. BI-WEEKLY TPM STATUS SAMPLE 65
TABLE 7. SOFTWARE METRICS STATUS SAMPLE 66
ix
Page intentionally blank
x
1.0 Introduction
This Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) for the UH-60M describes the detailed method for
planning and executing all technical activities required to transform the user needs, requirements,
and constraints into an optimized system solution for the UH-60M Program. This SEP covers
both the UH-60M Baseline and Upgrade. The differences for the Upgrade are covered in
Appendix A. This SEP is supported by the Prime Contractor’s Systems Engineering
Management Plan (SEMP) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The UHPO will update this SEP
for major milestones and as required throughout the lifecycle of the program.
1.1 Program Description and Applicable Documents
1.1.1 UH-60M Modernization Program Description

The UH-60 BLACK HAWK is the workhorse of Army Aviation, flying more than 40% of the
Army’s annual flying hours. The system has been in production for 26 years and provides a
common platform with the versatility to perform multiple missions. Today, one third of the
Army’s BLACK HAWK fleet (589 aircraft) is comprised of UH-60L aircraft with an average
age of 9 years. The remaining 963 aircraft are older UH-60A series with an average age
exceeding 20 years. To counter the older UH-60A’s declining readiness rates and increased
operations and support costs and to meet Future Force interoperability requirements, the Utility
Helicopters Project Office has established a program to replace the UH-60 and provide it with
the capabilities needed on the modern battlefield. The BLACK HAWK is a mission essential
system for the U.S. Army. The BLACK HAWK is a utility helicopter whose primary missions
are air assault, general support, and aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC). The UH-60 is also
used to support command and control (C2) (Army Airborne Command and Control System
[A2C2S]), electronic intelligence (EH-60s), and special operations (MH-60s).
Recapitalization/Upgrade of the BLACK HAWK supports the Army Aviation Modernization
Plan and Army transformation to the Future Force.
The UH-60M Modernization Program replaces the existing fleet of UH-60A/Ls with new UH-
60M aircraft to meet Block 1 requirements identified in the “ORD for Recapitalization of the
UH-60 BLACK HAWK Utility Helicopter Fleet.” These ORD requirements identify capabilities
for improved flying qualities, digitization and situational awareness, increased lift and range over
the UH-60A model, extended service life of the aircraft, and increased operational readiness over
the current UH-60A/L models.
There is no Army Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) for Utility Helicopter

Requirements. The UH-60 operates as a system-of-systems (SoS) within the Global Air Traffic
Management (GATM) structure. As such it falls under the GATM Capstone Requirements
Document (CRD) (USAF 003-97) as a CRD II platform. Specific UH-60 platform requirements
for GATM compliance are set forth in the U.S Army Operational Requirements Document for
GATM.
1
Recapitalization/Upgrade of the BLACK HAWK supports the Army Aviation Modernization

Plan and Army transformation to the Objective Future Force. UH-60M is complementary to the
Future Combat System. UH-60 operates as a system within the Global Information Grid (GIG)
and as such must be in compliance with the GIG CDR (JROCM 134-01) (Specific GIG
applicability and “Net-Ready” capability for aviation platforms that is in development.
1.1.1.1 UH-60M Baseline Program

The UH-60M Modernization Program takes advantage of existing aeronautical and digital
technologies to recapitalize and upgrade the fleet. The new production UH-60M aircraft
includes cabin structural improvements, a propulsion upgrade, and a digital cockpit. Immediate
payoff is realized by reducing the average fleet age, which reduces Operation and Sustainment
(O&S) costs. The T700-701D engine will provide significant lift capability over the UH-60A
and slight improvement over the UH-60L with the T700-701C engine. Digital avionics and
communications will allow the UH-60M BLACK HAWK to operate on the digital battlefield
and reduce pilot fatigue while improving situational awareness.
The resulting UH-60M helicopter will enhance the commander’s ability to conduct non-linear,
simultaneous, fully integrated operations in order to decisively mass the effects of the divisions’
warfighting assets. The UH-60M will provide digital connectivity for enhanced situational
awareness and improved lift, deployability, and survivability to further increase the
commander’s ability to conduct operations across the entire spectrum of the battlespace. More
specifically the UH-60M will replace the UH-60A/L analog primary flight instruments, as well
as the 1980’s communication and navigation subsystems, with state-of-the-art integrated
displays that provide the pilots information that reflects the current battlefield situation. The
automated features of this integrated system will significantly reduce pilot workload while
enhancing safety and the platform’s ability to operate within the demanding environments of
FAA, military, and international airspaces. The aircraft’s improved lift from the T-700-701D
and its Wide Chord Blades (WCB) will offset some of the increased weight it has received over
the years of modifications. Increased capabilities within the UH-60M detection systems will
provide additional survivability within the changing battlefield environment. The integration of
the Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS) will provide the UH-60M with
diagnostic and prognostic capability aimed at safer operations, significant benefits in terms of
parts monitoring, configuration management, and migration towards Condition Based
Maintenance (CBM).
The UH-60M Baseline Program will employ technologies to increase pilot efficiency, increase
mission safety and effectiveness, provide a digital communications architecture, enhance
survivability, improve Reliability and Maintainability (R&M), reduce O&S costs, and allow for
future system growth. The UH-60M crew station design will be compatible with future aviation
life support equipment (ALSE) specifications. It is the intent that the UH-60M BLACK HAWK
will capitalize on the current system design and all technological advances that are appropriate
and compatible in terms of performance, cost, and risk. The requirements contained within the
ORD will be achieved by an evolutionary development and production approach resulting in a
fleet with mixed performance capability. The Utility Helicopters Project Office will meet these
requirements by integrating mature technologies into the UH-60M helicopter. HH-60M aircraft
2
designated to perform the MEDEVAC mission will integrate the medical mission subsystems
found in the UH-60Q and HH-60L.
The UH-60M Baseline Program is structured to be a low risk, technology insertion program
designed to field the latest technologies into an experience proven, 25 year old airframe design
while keeping program cost and schedule risks to a minimum. Program design considerations
focus on empowering the UH-60M with expanded capabilities to improve the warfighters
situational awareness, increase lift capability, while improving aircraft survivability and
crashworthiness. To this end, the UH-60M design contains the latest in digital avionics in a
more automated cockpit environment to increase the flight crew’s situational awareness while
enabling digital data communication with the modernized, digitized force structure. Improved
propulsion components enable the UH-60M to carry more payload over a further distance under
more adverse hot and high altitude conditions than the legacy UH-60A/L aircraft. New crew and
troop seats and a Crashworthy External Fuel System (CEFS) enhance the crash survivability
characteristics for the flight crew and passengers while the latest aircraft survivability
equipment, such as Improved Hover Infra-red Suppression System (IHIRSS) and Common
Missile Warning System (CMWS), will help defend the aircraft against emerging ground threats.
Eight prototype aircraft will be built under the UH-60M Integration and Qualification contract.
The first prototype aircraft is a UH-60A to UH-60M conversion used for Development Testing
(DT). At the conclusion of DT, aircraft number one will be used by Special Operations for MH-
60M development. The second prototype aircraft is a UH-60L to UH-60M conversion. It is also
being used for DT. Aircraft number three is a new production UH-60M and will be used for Log
Demo and Operational Testing (OT) then transitioned to field operations. Aircraft number four
will be used for IVHMS integration and EMV/EMC testing.
Aircraft numbers five through seven will all be UH-60A to UH-60M conversions used for OT
and then transitioned to field operations. Aircraft number eight will be a UH-60A to HH-60M
MEDEVAC conversion supporting DT (MEDEVAC) and Customer Testing (CT), while
integrating the MEDEVAC subsystems. Proof-of-principle for the MEDEVAC mission
equipment package (MEP) was accomplished under the UH-60Q program, where four
MEDEVAC aircraft were produced and tested.
These first MEDEVAC aircraft were converted from UH-60A platforms, with improvements to
digitize the cockpit, and additions an environmental control system (ECS), hoist, forward-
looking infrared (FLIR), and aviation medical oxygen generating system (AMOGS). Since the
fielded MEDEVAC fleet are UH-60A aircraft, a UH-60A with External Stores Support System
(ESSS) will be used during the Integration/Qualification (I/Q) contract to demonstrate and
validate the integration of the MEDEVAC Mission Equipment Package (MEP) with the UH-
60M. Total requirements for the MEDEVAC mission are 303 aircraft.
1.1.1.2 UH-60M Upgrade Program

The UH-60M Upgrade Program retains all capabilities of the UH-60M Baseline Program and
achieves full compliance with the ORD objective requirement for Level 1 Handling Qualities.
The UH-60M Upgrade Program implements directed avionics commonality changes and
3
increases communications interoperability capability and survivability over the Baseline UH-
60M. The UH-60M Upgrade Program offsets weight growth associated with new capabilities by
employing advanced Fly-By-Wire (FBW) and composite technologies. These technologies
result in a target of no net weight growth for the UH-60M Upgrade Program aircraft over the
UH-60M Baseline Program.
1.1.1.3 UH-60M Block 2

Block 2, the UH-60X, will be initiated once the advance propulsion capabilities of the common
engine program (CEP) are available. [The CEP, an advanced technology program within the
Advanced Aviation Technology Directorate (AATD), will provide 3,000 shaft horsepower with
reduced fuel consumption. The Army’s Apache program and the Navy’s Sea Hawk program
will also procure the engines.] Along with the increased lift and range, the Block 2 aircraft will
contain increased digitization and improved aircraft survivability equipment. While technology
constrains the ability to meet UH-60 Modernization ORD Block 2 (UH-60X) lift/range
requirements in the near term, the need exists now to upgrade existing BLACK HAWKs to meet
digitization/situational awareness requirements, reduce O&S costs, and increase operational
readiness. The UH-60M is the evolutionary, tiered approach that will lay the foundation for
meeting Block 2 requirements when technology matures sufficiently to be integrated onto the
platform.
1.1.1.4 System Description

The BLACK HAWK is a twin turbine engine, single main rotor, largely semi-monocoque
fuselage, rotary wing helicopter capable of transporting cargo, 11 combat troops, and weapons
during day, night, Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), Visual Meteorological
Conditions (VMC), Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), Visual Flight Rules (VFR), and Degraded
Visual Environment (DVE) conditions. The main and tail rotor systems consist of four blades
each, with the capability to manually fold the main rotor blades, scissor the tail rotor paddles,
and fold the tail pylon assembly for deployment transport, or storage. A movable, composite
folding horizontal stabilator assembly is located on the lower portion of the tail rotor pylon to
enhance the ease of transportability preparation.
With the installation of designated mission flexibility kits, the BLACK HAWK may be
configured to perform MEDEVAC (up to 6 litters), extended range or self-deployment, or mine
dispensing, as required. The UH-60 was designed to combine maneuverability with capability to
transport large quantities of men and equipment rapidly across the battlefield. In support of this
role, the Primary Mission Configuration (PMC) performance characteristics were based on
aircraft operation at design gross weight, 4000 feet (ft) pressure altitude (PA), 95 degrees (deg)
Fahrenheit (F), zero wind conditions, with a crew of four. The flight crew consists of pilot,
copilot, crew chief, and one additional crewmember.
The UH-60M Baseline Program provides the aircraft with digital connectivity for enhanced
situational awareness, improved flight handling qualities and improved lift, range, deployability,
and survivability to further increase the commander’s ability to conduct operations across the
entire spectrum of the battlespace. The UH-60M is a new production aircraft with improvements
to airframe, electrical system, main rotor blades, Advanced Flight Control Computer (AFCC),
flight controls, cockpit/avionics, and ASE. Figure 1 illustrates graphically the improvements for
4
the UH-60M Modernization Program as compared to the UH-60A/L. Specifically, the UH-60M
configuration will have the following improvements:
Cockpit Digitization
Airframe Improvements Operate on, Integrate with Digitized Battlefield (C2
& SA Interoperability)
Extend Service Life
Long-Range Precision Navigation
Reduced O&S*
Open System Architecture Allows Growth
Increased R&M* Capability
Standardized Fleet Enhanced Survivability through Situational
More Robust in EMI Environment Awareness
Increased Crashworthiness Canadian Marconi Flight Management System and
Fully Coupled Flight Director Decreases Pilot
Propulsion Improvements
Workload
Integrated Health Management System (IVHMS)
Increased Lift and Range* Increased Pilot Mission Mgmt Efficiency
Reduced O&S Costs* Standardized Fleet – long term
Increased R&M* Power PC Processor Family Reduces
Standardized Fleet Obsolescence Impact
Increased Survivability GATM Compliance
Rotor Brake Provisions 4 Rockwell Collins MFDs with Digital Map
Data Transfer from AMPS
FIGURE 1. UH-60M BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS
a. Airframe Structural Improvements. Airframe improvements include redesigned

cabin structure, new composite folding stabilator, troop seats, and crew seats.
Strengthening is added to major airframe load paths as required to accommodate the
increased Wide Chord Blade (WCB) lift capability along with other known legacy
fatigue problems, active vibration control, and the modifications to the aircraft usage
spectrum to reflect growth in mission weight. The entire fleet shall be capable of
carrying External Stores Support Systems (ESSS). An improved Crashworthy External
5
Fuel System (CEFS) will improve fuel gauging, decrease fueling time, improve tank
crashworthy capabilities and provide the capability of emergency jettison.
b. Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3). The new aircraft will include electrical
wiring shielding to meet the E3 requirements In-Accordance-With (IAW) AVNS-PRF-
10002 and accommodate new electrical systems designs. This includes the removal of all
filter pin adapters and the application of the more stringent ADS37A standard for the
design of new components.
c. Wide Chord Rotor Blade (WCB). The WCB has been qualified and is flying on the test
UH-60M aircraft. This blade offers increased lift over the current blade to provide some
of the lift capability lost due to the increased mission weight of the UH-60M. The
advanced composite main rotor blades consist of a graphite/fiberglass spar and a swept
anhederal blade tip. The WCB has a 16% wider chord than the current
composite/titanium blade. Advances in airfoil and tip geometry, evaluated during six
years of Independent Research & Development (IR&D) testing have resulted in a blade
configuration that has demonstrated substantially improved aerodynamic performance.
At the root end, the wide chord blade attaches to the aircraft in exactly the same manner
as the current UH-60L production blade, except that the blade attachment pins are
approximately 0.1 inch longer than the current production attachment pins. Elimination
of the current blade’s titanium spar allows for the elimination of the Blade Integrity
Monitor (BIM).
d. Flight Control Computer (FCC). The UH-60M FCC is a digital computer that
provides the Stability Augmentation System (SAS), trim and Flight Path Stabilization
(FPS) functions. The SAS function provides aircraft body rate damping in pitch, roll,
yaw and collective. The trim system maintains stick trim in pitch, roll, yaw and
collective through the respective trim actuators. The FPS function maintains helicopter
flight path through control of attitudes, heading, airspeed and lateral acceleration. In
addition, a fully coupled flight director has been added to the flight control system. This
allows coupling to air speed, altitude, navaids, etc. The FCC provides extensive fault
detection of its associated hardware, processors, sensors, actuators via extensive Built In
Test (BIT) capability. There are two FCC’s required per aircraft.
e. Avionics Baseline. The avionics incorporate a dual redundant
communications/navigation MIL-STD-1553 data bus, an ARINC 429 data bus, and an
Ethernet capability. It also includes a Flight Management System (FMS), four Multi-
Function Displays (MFDs), an integrated stormscope, and all hardware and software
necessary to allow the crew to digitally communicate via the Improved Data Modem
(IDM). The FMS provides the pilots with the ability to view and input flight/mission
data, and interface with specific MFD and other subsystem functionality. The MFDs will
provide a wide range of data presentation to include: a moving map with multiple
flight/mission planning overlays, fully certified primary flight instrument displays,
caution advisory and systems status displays, as well as interactive Joint Variable
Message Format (JVMF) data message displays. The avionics will be compliant to Joint
Tactical Architecture-Army (JTA-A) V6.0.
f. Integrated Vehicle Health Monitoring System. The UH-60M/HH-60M will include an
Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS) that monitors and records
6
flight and system parameters to be used to improve Reliability, Maintainability, and

Safety through flight regime recognition. The IVHMS will support the reduction of O&S
cost, improve force protection, accelerate the flow of aircraft maintenance information
and improve readiness. The IVHMS will provide the capability to simultaneously
acquire, store, and process data to include aircraft structural, engine, drive train, electrical
and voice data. The IVHMS will include a Cockpit Voice Recorder/Flight Data Recorder
(CVR/FDR) to support aircraft accident prevention and investigation. The data collected
by the IVHMS will be used for maintenance, maintenance history, supply, trending,
aircraft monitoring, training and will assist in accident investigations.
g. Improved Hover Infra-Red Suppression System. The engine exhaust system includes
an IHIRSS that further reduces the infrared signature of the aircraft. The kit is made up
of the de-swirl, baffle, and the exhaust.
h. Crashworthy External Fuel System. The CEFS provides the capability to deliver fuel
from external fuel tanks directly into the main fuel tanks. The CEFS consists of two (2)
200-gallon crashworthy external fuel tanks; two (2) BRU-22 ejection racks for each
ESSS removable provisions kit; a jettison subsystem; and the necessary adapter,
electrical harnesses, and the tube assemblies to complete the interface with the ESSS.
Fuel is stored in two to four interchangeable, crashworthy, ballistic-resistant tanks. The
fuel system consists of lines from the main fuel tanks, firewall-mounted selector valves,
prime/boost pump and fuel tanks, and engine driven suction boost pumps. The fuel
system also contains electrically operated submerged fuel boost pumps in each fuel tank
which can provide pressurized fuel if engine fuel pressure drops below the minimum
operating pressure. The CEFS program is managed by the UH-60 Project Office under
separate budget. .
i. Improved Data Modem. The IDM is a high-speed data modem connecting avionic
communications processor to aircraft radios (See software section for full details of IDM
software development.) that provides digital communications processing. .
j. Stormscope. The Stormscope provides electrical discharge activity information to the
pilots. Stormscope information will be integrated into the Multi-Functional Displays and
overlaid on the aircraft moving map and navigation displays which will enable the pilots
to avoid bad weather.
k. Dual Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS). The Dual Embedded Global
Positioning System (GPS) with Inertial Navigation System (INS) - (EGI), H-764G EGI,
integrates the functions of a GPS and an INS into one single line replaceable unit (LRU).
The system is an all-attitude navigation system providing outputs of linear and angular
acceleration, velocity, position attitude (roll, pitch, and platform azimuth), magnetic and
true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags and time. The EGI uses its inertial
guidance along with GPS position input and sophisticated error correction algorithms to
provide a very accurate “blended” navigation solution. PM AME manages the program;
UH-60M will be responsible for procuring these items from PM AME and providing
them to the contractor as GFE.
l. Improved Durability Gear Box (IDGB) . The IDGB is already installed on all UH-60L
models. The IDGB provides increased durability, and increases maximum rating of the
7
UH-60A main gearbox from 2,828 shaft horsepower (shp) to 3,400 shp. All UH-60Ms
will receive Rotor Brake provisions on the IDGB.
m. T700-GE-701D Engines. The UH-60M/HH-60M will be powered by two T700-GE-
701D General Electric Turbine engines rated at 1,994 shaft horse power (shp) maximum
rated power (MRP) at sea level standard (SLS). These are T700-GE-701C engines with
upgraded hot section components.
n. AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning. The AN/AVR-2B is a passive threat warning system,
which receives, processes, and displays threat information resulting from aircraft
illumination by lasers. PM Aviation Electronic Systems (AES) will provide the AVR-2B
B-Kit free of charge to the UH-60M Modernization Program. The AN/AVR-2B and the
remaining ASE suite is integrated into the MFD display to provide an integrated
comprehensive threat picture overlayed on the digital map or navigation displays
providing improved situational awareness for the pilot.
o. High Speed Engine Driveshaft. In October of 2003, UH PO issued an Engineering
Change Proposal (ECP) contract to incorporate the improved driveshaft design into the
UH-60L production line. The improved design is expected to reduce the inspection
criteria on the current driveshaft. This change is targeted for implementation in LRIP.
There is currently an Interim Statement Air Qualification (ISAQ) for the Improved
Engine High Speed Driveshaft design for the UH60A/L/Q/M and HH-60L/M. The
improved engine high speed driveshaft design is a joint design funded by the US Navy
and the US Army. The US Navy has already procured shipsets for forced retrofit on the
Sea Hawk and will be incorporating the design into their production line as well.
p. Redesigned Drag Beam. The drag beam redesign program is post Critical Design
Review (CDR) with the next milestone being First Article Test (FAT). Redesigning the
jack pad feature and thickening the structure at the critical area eliminates the stress
corrosion cracking issue in the drag beam.
q. Solid Main Rotor Blade Attachment Pin. Inspections on the blade pin are a significant
maintenance burden to the field. The new main rotor blade pin features a solid core with
no expanding segments. Core material was changed to a material that is corrosion
resistant. The new design is expected to have an unlimited retirement life and will
eliminate the burdensome inspections that are required on the expandable pins. The new
pin is more expensive than the existing pin due to the material change and initial single
sourcing.
8
1.1.2 Applicable Documents

The following table identifies the applicable documents referenced within this document.
Document Title Date Point of Contact
UH-60M Risk Management Plan 03 December 2004 Bill Hanks
UH-60M Configuration Management Plan 28 October 2003 Jim Chojnowski

Acquisition Strategy for the Block 1 UH-60M 26 February 2007 Rick Hubert
BLACK HAWK Modernization Program
UH-60M Supportability Plan 25 January 2005 John Smith
Prior to Milestone (MS) B, the UH-60M Program Manager (PM) developed a System
Engineering Master Plan (SEMP) that was then used by the Contractor, Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation, to develop an Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The IMP was delivered to the UH-
60M PO as part of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program. These
programmatic documents serve as the basis for this document and have been updated in support
of the Milestone C Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) decision.
The ORD for Recapitalization of the UH-60 BLACK HAWK Utility Helicopter Fleet first
received JROC approval on 5 March 2001 (JROCM 046-01). It acknowledges the need to
address the deficiencies within the aging BLACK HAWK fleet. These deficiencies were
validated by the Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM)in the studies commissioned on
Utility and Cargo Helicopter Lift Requirements (Dated 9 August 1995 (validated 1998)) and the
Utility Helicopter Fleet Modernization (Dated January 1999). The General Officer Steering
Committee (GOSC) for these studies concluded in January 1999 that a pure UH-60 recapitalized
fleet was desired, however, affordability constraints and maturation of key technologies drove an
evolutionary acquisition approach. This ORD and follow-on Capability Documents reflect that
evolutionary approach with the incremental upgrade of the entire Utility Helicopter fleet to meet
future capability requirements. The ORD was updated on 5 March 2005 to support the MS C
decision to proceed with Increment 1 (Block 1) production. Follow-on incremental capability
improvements are supported with the appropriate phased Capability Documents. A Doctrine,
Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Organization, Materiel, Personnel and Soldiers
Facilities (DOTMLOMLPFS) determination analysis was completed by the U.S. Army Aviation
Center (USAAVNC) and non-materiel alternatives were judged to be inadequate. Requirements
Analysis and Analysis of Alternatives conducted under the oversight of AMCOM and Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) support the requirements set forth in the ORD.
The UH-60M System Performance Specification (AVNS-PRF-10002) was developed in 1999-

2000 and established the technical baseline for the Risk Reduction contract/phase. It was a
combination of legacy requirements drawn from the UH-60A/L, combined with derived
9
requirements identified within the GATM ORD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
documents. It has been under configuration management since the Integration and Qualification
contract/phase was initiated, updated to what is now the “F” version, signed on 25 July 2006.
The Test and Evaluation Master plan (TEMP) serves as the master document for outlining the
test and evaluation requirements for the acquisition program. Separate OT programs will be
required for the UH-60M, UH-60M Upgrade, and Block 2 aircraft respectively to evaluate the
operational performance, suitability, and survivability of the overall UH-60 Fleet
Recapitalization/Upgrade Program. The TEMP will only address the planned OT requirements
for the UH-60M aircraft to support a UH-60M FRP DR. Block 2 requirements will be addressed
in revisions of the TEMP to support UH-60M Block 2 Recapitalization/Upgrade Program
milestones.
The Acquisition Strategy follows the guidance provided in DoD Directive 5000.1, 23 OCT 2000,
and DoD Instruction 5000.2, 23 OCT 2000. It incorporates an evolutionary approach and
mirrors the “ORD For Recapitalization of the UH-60 BLACK HAWK Utility Helicopter Fleet.”
The ORD specifies firm requirements for the first block (UH-60M) as well as a firm definition of
full capability of the second (final) block. This Acquisition Strategy describes the strategy for
the UH-60M (Block 1) in terms of capability, funding, development, test, production and
support. Block 2 is described to the extent it can be today. A subsequent Block 2 Program
Acquisition Strategy will address these items in detail when it is written. This UH-60M Program
Acquisition Strategy supports the Milestone decision relevant only to the UH-60M.
The Integrated Master Plan (IMP) signed on 26 June 2001 describes the management approach
for the UH-60M program execution established to comply with the UH-60M Statement of Work,
Schedules, plans and Sikorsky Aircraft System Engineering Process. The objective of the IMP
and its associated schedule, the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), is to provide both
Government and Contractor program management with real time visibility into the schedule and
the health status of each primary segment of the program. It describes a totally integrated effort
of design engineering, specialty engineering, test engineering, logistics engineering and
production engineering to meet cost, technical performance and schedule objectives. It defines
the management process for the design, development, test and evaluation tasks required to
progress from an operational need to the deployment and operation of the system by the user.
The engineering integration process described by the IMP provides for the timely and
appropriate synergy of the engineering effort and disciplines such as reliability, maintainability
and logistics engineering to enable their influence on the system design.
The UH-60M Specification Tree (Figure 12) was developed in cooperation with the Contractor.
The specification tree provides traceability from the platform ORD, to include multiple other
organizational ORDs (GATM, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2), the
Performance Specification, Segment Specifications, and multiple other layers of documentation.
It has been developed utilizing the format/structure of the WBS, Attachment 3. This provides the
complete traceability of all requirements documents. Any document that provided a Pilot
Vehicle Interface (PVI) was identified within the specification tree. Configuration Management
(CM) of the specification tree is being maintained by the Government and continues to provide
10
interim updates as the system matures. The top layers, down to and including the Performance
Specification identify the Functional Baseline. The next level, the Segment Specifications and
the Avionics System/Segment Design Document (SSDD), compile what is defined as the
allocated baseline. All documents below this level represent the Product Baseline.
1.1.3 Program Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

The UH-60M Modernization Program is subject to the statutory and regulatory information
requirements prescribed in DODI 5000.2. The tables in Attachment 1, drawn from DODI 5000.2,
describe the required information, the applicable statute or regulation, and when the document is
required to be developed or updated. An additional column has been added to illustrate the UH-
60M document in which the required information resides.
1.2 Program Technical Status
The Baseline UH-60M is nearing the end of the SDD Phase of the program. IOT&E, LFT&E,
and EMV testing have been completed. All eight I/Q aircraft have been delivered, the LRIP
contract has been signed and deliveries of production UH-60M aircraft have started. The third
I/Q aircraft and the first two LRIP aircraft are production representative new build aircraft and
were utilized in the IOT&E. The other 7 IQ aircraft were remanufactured UH-60A or UH-60L
models upgraded to the UH-60M configuration. Close out of all remaining CDRLs is currently
underway, delivery and approval of the outstanding CDRLs will support the Statement of
Airworthiness Qualification, currently scheduled for mid 2007. The full rate production aircraft,
scheduled to start with UH-60M aircraft number 31 and subsequent will be used to support FUE,
2QFY08.
1.3 Approach for SEP Upgrades

The SEP provides a complete, integrated technical management plan for the Block 1, UH-60M
BLACK HAWK Modernization Program, henceforth referred to as the UH-60M Modernization
Program and incorporates all tasks to be conducted as Block 1 of the UH-60M Modernization
Program. Block 1 is further divided into two phases which are referred to as the UH-60M
Baseline Program and the UH-60M Upgrade Program. The SEP is a living document, which
serves as a detailed method for planning and executing all technical activities required to
transform the user needs, requirements, and constraints into an optimized system solution. The
comments provided by OSD and PEO Aviation after the MS C submittal have been incorporated.
In addition, the SEP submitted for MS C has been reformatted to coincide with the 10 May 2005
version of the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Preparation Guide. This SEP is continually
upgraded for major technical reviews.
2.0 Systems Engineering Application to Life Cycle Phases

The Acquisition Strategy for the Utility Helicopter UH-60M/HH-60M MEDEVAC Program has
been provided under a separate cover. The Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) reflects an
objective date for first unit equipped date of January 2008. The ORD reflects an evolutionary
11
approach with the UH-60M being the first block. This blocked acquisition approach will meet
digitization/situational awareness requirements, allowing the BLACK HAWK fleet to keep pace
with the digitized Army. This strategy also provides a common modernized platform for the
fleet. The UH-60M will comply with the UH-60 Modernization ORD requirements for Block 1.
(Block 2 has its own requirements in the UH-60 Modernization ORD to accomplish leap-ahead
technology through development, integration and qualification of the Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP) propulsion system.)
The UH-60M program is being accomplished in four acquisition phases:
• Pre-Systems Development and Demonstration Phase (Risk Reduction)

• Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase
• Production and Deployment (PD) Phase
• Operations and Sustainment (O&S) Phase
For the UH-60M Modernization Program, the Pre-SDD phase is referred to as Risk Reduction
(RR) and the SDD phase has been referred to as Integration and Qualification (I/Q). Within these
phases the Program has developed and integrated a Risk Management Plan. A summary diagram
of key milestones and events within the UH-60M Modernization Program is depicted in Figure
2.
During the SDD phase of the program, ongoing UH-60 production efforts and existing programs
were leveraged to define innovative and integrated solutions for the UH-60M configuration
baseline and develop key program planning documentation. The SDD phase focused on the
integration and qualification of Block 1 upgrades. The Full Rate Production (FRP) phase or
Production and Deployment Phase will incorporate the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) into
the existing production line to produce new UH/HH-60M aircraft in preparation for First Unit
Equipped (FUE) in FY08.
12
NOW
PROGR FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
AM
UH-60A/A UH-60A-A
(Recap) 22 30 20 20 9 10 10 5 AAO
193
UH-60L
(ACAT IC) 38 32 UH-60
MS C MY VII C/A AAO
LRIP C/A FRP MY VIII CA 1806
UH-60M 5 17 66/59* 39 57 46 19
MEDEVAC MEP 10/5** 10 11 11
(ACAT ID)
DT / Flight Test
OT FUE
IPR LUT SIL

Contract Award
UH-60M PDR CDR Cut-In IPR Full-rate IPR
Upgrade Test A/C Development 1 2
Dev Testing
ADS-33, E3, CTSF, Log Demo Operational Test
*7 A/C plus-up possible if FUE
Supplemental Funds received LRIP C/A
3 7 19 27
otherwise P-Forms number is 59
** Clarification of Conference MEDEVAC MEP 5 15
60 63 66
Language has been requested
MEDEVAC MEP 22 23 22
FIGURE 2. UH-60M BASELINE/UPGRADE ACQUISITION SCHEDULE
2.1 Life Cycle Phases

The UH-60M is a key element to the US Army Modernization Plan, which in turn has its basis in
the Army Vision and its overarching modernization plan. The Modernization Plan provides a
proactive course of continuous improvement supporting the National Military Strategy, Joint
Vision 2010, and the Army Vision. The UH-60M modernization strategy reflects the Army
Vision and Army modernization goals, 2010 Aviation warfighting requirements, the change in
force structure requirements from the 1993 Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI) to Aviation
XXI Force Structure, and emerging structure changes from Aviation XXI to meet the Army’s
new vision.
2.1.1 Pre-SDD Phase (Risk Reduction Phase)

In 1998, the US Army Aviation Center Director of Combat Developments began the
development of a UH-60 BLACK HAWK Modernization ORD. During this same timeframe, the
US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) chartered a utility helicopter fleet
modernization study to address how to best meet the challenges faced by the aging fleet. The
Utility Helicopter Fleet Modernization Analysis, which concluded in January 1999, was led by a
GOSC that reached a consensus recommendation for the path ahead. The GOSC consensus was
that while a pure UH-60 modernized fleet is the desired approach, it is currently unattainable
because of affordability constraints.
13
To maximize efficiency and reduce risks, the Utility Helicopter Program Office (UH PO)
leverages ongoing UH-60 (UH-60Q and Service Life Assessment Program) efforts to meet Block
1 performance requirements (digital map, flight management system, Control Display Unit
(CDU) rehost, CEFS, WCB Dual Use Application Program (DUAP), Active Vibration Control
(AVC)). Program schedule and cost risk were further reduced through a Risk Reduction (RR)
contract with the contractor to conduct initial design and performance analysis (including trade
studies and the first of three early user demonstrations), initial system requirements definition,
and program planning in support of the I/Q effort.
The following exit criteria for the RR phase were satisfied.
• Identification of the UH-60M performance baseline as established in the System

Performance Specification and the UH-60M MEDEVAC interface requirements.
• Establishment of Cost as An Independent Variable (CAIV) goals
• Preparation and approval of all MS B program documentation
• I/Q contract definition
2.1.2 SDD Phase (Integration and Qualification Phase)

The UH-60M PM received approval at MS B in March 2001 to enter the SDD Phase. During
this phase, the ECPs were developed for application to the UH-60L production line to produce
UH/HH-60Ms. The ECPs incorporate the UH-60M configuration baseline, as well as airframe
structural improvements. Eight test articles will be developed to determine the engineering
changes and production processes required to produce UH-60Ms. Configuration documentation,
logistics support requirements, training, maintenance and other supportability planning will
focus on and be an integral part of the UH-60M development process .
Key reviews during this phase are the System Requirements Review (SRR), Preliminary Design
Review (PDR), and Critical Design Review (CDR). This phase ends with the successful
demonstration of lift, range, interoperability and reliability and maintainability growth. Detailed
Entrance/Exit criteria for each review can be found in section 2.5.6. Exit criteria for this phase
are shown in Figure 3.
14
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION EXIT CRITERIA

Parameter General Criteria Status
Internal Lift Demonstrate during flight testing the ability to

internally lift, at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: 11
C
Combat Troops @ 290 lbs. each. Radius: 225 km,
20-min fuel reserve.
External Load (KPP) Demonstrate during flight testing the ability to
externally lift, at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: 4500 lbs.
C
Radius: 135 km (73 nm) plus 20-minute fuel
reserve.
Net Ready/ Demonstrate the ability to send and receive the free
Interoperability (KPP) text JVMF, send position report via JVMF and
C
display a digital moving map overlaid with tactical
situation graphics
Reliability Demonstrate that MTBEMA is on a growth curve
to achieve the ORD threshold by the Full Rate C*
Production Decision Review (FRP DR)
P = Pending C = Completed
* Requires additional flight hours for greater confidence levels
FIGURE 3. SDD EXIT CRITERIA
2.1.3 Production and Deployment Phase (PD)

With the completion of the SDD Phase and MS C review, MDA was received in March 2005.
This included the decision to enter the initial production phase of the program which will include
Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The purpose of this phase is to achieve an operational
capability that satisfies mission needs. Upon completion of this phase, the UH-60M
configuration and integration of the MEDEVAC unique components will have met all applicable
system performance requirements, to include airworthiness qualification and will be ready for
incorporation as ECPs for production cut-in.
2.1.3.1 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

The purpose of the UH-60M LRIP will be to establish a production baseline, ramp up to full
production rate, and produce systems for IOT&E. Key review/events during this period include
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) Readiness Review, and Physical
Configuration/Functional Configuration Audits. All of these reports and review information will
be available to the PM. The MS C authorization authorized entry into LRIP and long-lead
funding in fiscal year 2006. The LRIP will support the completion of manufacturing
development and prove out capabilities to insure orderly production ramp-up.
15
2.1.3.2 Full Rate Production (FRP)

A FRP decision will follow in 2007. The criteria for the FRP decision are demonstration of the
Critical Operational Issues and Criteria (COIC) identified by the Test and Evaluation Master
Plan (TEMP). Other criteria which must be satisfied to start FRP include the following:
• Successful completion of IOT&E

• Submission/Approval of the Beyond LRIP and LFT&E Reports
The FUE will be approximately six months after FRP. The unit will receive
aircraft produced during the LRIP contract. In conjunction with fielding the
aircraft, the gaining unit will receive a systems support package, training, and
other support.
2.1.3.3 Production and Quality

Critical to the UH-60M Modernization Program at this point in the life cycle are both production
and quality. It is the objective of the UH-60M team to deliver a high quality, reliable, affordable
product to the field.
2.1.3.3.1 Manufacturing Operations

Producibility analysis has been conducted utilizing concurrent engineering, coordinated
electronic design, and trade studies. These methods allow consideration for all aspects of
component life including: nonrecurring and recurring costs, development cost, repeatability,
maintainability, materials, and processes. Producibility analysis tasks are:
• Integrate requirements of the basic aircraft design with materials and manufacturing methods
• Assist in meeting program objectives (ie. technical targets, schedule)
• Conduct trade studies as required to support design/development process
Planning for manufacturing operations focuses on process prove-out to demonstrate detail

fabrication and assembly practices and processes. Areas of focus include tooling, operations
management, facilities planning, and subcontractor management and requirements flowdown.
2.1.3.3.2 Production Readiness Assessments (PRAs)

PRAs are employed to assess risks associated with transitioning weapon system programs from
development to production. These assessments are typically accomplished incrementally during
development by a team of multi-disciplined engineers. PRAs evaluate 3 major areas: Design
Stability, Manufacturing Processes and Manufacturing Infrastructure.
Given the mature nature of the UH-60 production line which has been inoperation for over 25
years, a Production Readiness Review (PRR) on the UH-60M Program will be conducted in
preparation for a Full Rate Production (FRP) decision scheduled for May 2007 in lieu of a PRA.
A requirement has been levied on the UH-60M program by OSD that it attain an Engineering
Manufacturing Readiness Level (EMRL) 4 prior to entering FRP. There are 5 readiness levels,
and these are a gradation of statements for each metric that represent an increasing level of
production readiness. The summary description for EMRL 4 is a “similar system, component or
16
item previously produced or in production. Or, the system, component or item is in low rate
initial production. Ready for full rate production.”
Depending on one’s definition of a “process”, the build of the UH-60M could be seen as a
collection of production processes numbering anywhere from the hundreds to the thousands.
Consequently, decisions as to which processes should be evaluated to determine risks associated
with transitioning to full rate production are very critical. The Defense Acquisition Guidebook
(DAG) (Version 1.0 – 10/17/2004) states that the program manager should tailor the PRR to the
technical scope and risk associated with the system. The UH-60 PO will structure the PRR in
such a manner as to address the criteria associated with an EMRL 4 but will focus on processes
that have been identified either by the Government or the Contractor as processes of concern.
For example, rather than attempting to address all in-house processes at Sikorsky, it may be
more appropriate to concentrate on final assembly, the transmission and main rotor blade
backshops. In addition to addressing the EMRL criteria, the UH-60 PO may chose to assess
other areas of concern. The EMRL 4 criteria are described in Table 1.
17
Criteria Metric EMRL 4

Modeling & Simulation model validated by LRIP build. Production simulation models used as
Simulation tool to assist in management.
Work instructions complete & verified. Assembly methods complete &
Assembly Methods demonstrated in LRIP
Manufacturing processes & procedures are established and controlled in
Processes Maturity production to 3-sigma or other appropriate quality level.
Manufacturing
Technology
Initiatives Manufacturing technology developments implemented.
Demonstrated LRIP yield goals are met. Yield rates acceptable for FRP. Yield
Yields improvement process ongoing.
Training/certification complete. All special skills requirements are met and
Special Skills demonstrated in LRIP.
Design to Cost Design to Cost Cost estimates meet cost goals.
Tooling demonstrated in LRIP. Multiple tooling requirements identified &

Tooling procurement initiated.
Tooling/Special Special Test STE demonstrated in LRIP. Multiple STE requirements identified & procurement
Test Equipment Equipment (STE) initiated.
Producibility Design producibility improvements demonstrated in LRIP. Process producibility

Program improvements ongoing.
Form, Fit & Verified that hardware meets packaging plan requirements in LRIP. Packaging
Ffunction changes pose no adverse impact on schedule or producibility.
Design Custom
Producibility Components Custom components have no fab/assy/rate issues adversely affecting production.
Key All key characteristics are controlled in production to 3-sigma or other appropriate
Characteristics quality level.
Maturity Material is proven and controlled in LRIP.

Availability issues addressed. Long lead procurement initiated for FRP. No
Availability availability issues pose significant impact on FRP.
Sole/single/foreign sources stability is assessed/monitored. Sources available,
multi-sourcing where possible. Delivery schedules demonstrated to support LRIP
Materials Sources build.
Materials Planning Make/buy decisions & BOM complete to support FRP.
Special handling procedures demonstrated in LRIP. No special handling issues to
Special Handling impact FRP.
Rate projections refined and estimated capacities meet FRP requirements. Any
Industrial Industrial facilities or production line changes are validated. Facilities demonstrated to be
Base/Facilities Base/Facilities adequate in LRIP.
TABLE 1. EMRL 4 CRITERIA
As a starting point, the UH-60 PO will assemble a team of subject matter experts (SME)
covering a spectrum of functional areas from the Project Office, AMRDEC and DCMA-
Sikorsky. The SMEs will be charged with developing a set of questions aimed at addressing the
EMRL 4 criteria. These questions will then be forwarded to the Prime ahead of the scheduled
review as a self assessment. Upon completion, Sikorsky will submit the results of the self-
18
assessment to the Government. Following a review of the self-assessment, the Government will
conduct fact finding. Fact finding, preferably via a sampling process, will provide the
Government an opportunity to independently verify, validate or further investigate Sikorsky’s
responses.
The next step will be to conduct an on-site review which will consist primarily of Sikorsky
briefing the Government the responses to the self-assessment, reviewing fact-finding results,
joint identification and classification of risks, and joint development of risk mitigation plans.
The risk assessment process to be used will be the same as that currently used on the UH-60M
program and outlined in the UH-60M Risk Management Plan.
2.1.3.4 Product Assurance

The UH-60M Product Assurance approach supports the system engineering IPT and is made up
of five disciplines, R&M, Obsolescence and Components Engineering, System Safety,
Configuration Management and Quality Engineering. Each function integrated with the other
provides Product Assurance to the system beginning with design and continuing through Product
Baseline Qualification and System Qualification and Baseline definition. R&M chairs the
System Scoring Conferences, Failure Review Boards and is responsible for system data
collection all of which supports the MS C decision point for the system. R&M is also the focal
point between the UH-60M and the DoD system evaluators. Obsolescence and Components
Engineering is responsible for providing visibility into the obsolescence projections and
predictions of components, subsystems and systems being designed and qualified on the UH-
60M and to provide feedback to the UH60M system engineering team. Components
Engineering provides expertise into the selection and use of specialized components and
materials and provides expertise on part substitutions and use of alternate materials. System
Safety is responsible for providing safety-engineering expertise as it relates to the Safety of the
UH-60M and its subsystems and components. System Safety chairs the System Safety Working
group and is the UH-60M safety focal point to the United States Army Safety Center and the
AMCOM Safety Office as well as a primary interface to the Aviation Engineering Directorate
(AED) on matters of System Safety. Configuration Management provides the system
engineering IPT with configuration information for the various Allocated Specifications, and is
the configuration manager for the System Specification. Configuration Management is the
Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairman for changes generated to the System Specification
by the contractor. Configuration management is also tasked with the Physical Configuration
Audit, which will be used to establish the Product Baseline for the UH60M system. Quality
Engineering may provide qualification support to the IPTs for electronic subsystems and to
ensure that corrective actions are implemented and are effective for items that have failed either
during qualification or system testing. They are an integral member of the UH-60M Failure
Review Board and provide support for tool certification as well as the interface between the UH-
60M and the DCMA offices of the contractors involved on the program.
Collectively the Product Assurance functions support the system engineering IPT from design
thru qualification and are an integral part of the MS C decision point for the system.
19
2.1.3.5 System Evaluation

The UH-60M T&E program has been designed to optimize the combined test assets, schedule,
and budget to evaluate the performance and airworthiness qualification requirements of the UH-
60M Modernization Program. Figure 4 illustrates the UH-60M test program schedule.
Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) will evaluate the UH-60M aircraft performance and
airworthiness qualification requirements and evaluate system readiness for Operational Testing
(OT). An integrated DT&E program using the Contractor/Government Combined Test Team
(CTT) approach is planned for integration qualification to support a single, continuous Army
systems evaluation.
2.1.3.5.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)

The scope of the UH-60M DT&E program encompasses both the SDD phase and the PD phase
of the UH-60M Modernization Program. It is designed as a seamless program that will optimize
and combine test assets, schedule, and budget, of both phases, in order to meet phase objectives,
milestones, and major events. Under this concept, coupled with a structured CTT approach, the
program will be able to identify program deficiencies early in the DT stage so that risk-
mitigating solutions can be developed and applied with minimum risk to program cost and
schedule.
The UH-60M DT Flight Test Program is estimated to consist of approximately 647 flight hours.
A disciplined planning approach is being designed to maximize the use of available flight test
hours. Upon completion of the entire DT/OT flight test program, the threshold requirement for
Mean Time Between Maintenance Action (MTBMA), Mean Time Between Mission Affecting
Failure (MTBMAF), and MTBEMA will be evaluated. Specific
FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SDD PHASE PD PHASE FUE
Phases & SYS CDR
MS B MS C FRP DR
Milestones (DAB) FRP SER
LUT in SIL Decision PAE-TEST RPT MSC SER
Flight Test
CTT IR Test
DT Comp/Sub-Sys Qual
Component/
Ground Test Ground Test-
EMI/EMV
SLAP SLAP
PH-1 (component/static comp)

Live Fire Test
PH – II (dynamic/GTV)
EUD
EUD 2
LUT in the SIL OT Training

MEDEVAC
customer test IOT&E
Log Demo
Operational Test
SIL OTRR 1 SIL OTRR 3 IOT OTRR 2
SIL OTRR 2 IOT OTRR 3 FUE Trng
IOT OTRR 1
Induction/Assembly/Acceptance Test 1– A/C

4 Additional IOT OTRR
Aircraft Induction/Assembly/Acceptance Test – A/C A/C delivered to
IOT test site
Deliveries for Induction/Assembly/Acceptance Test – A/C
IOT&E Induction/Assembly/Acceptance Test – A/C
FIGURE 4. UH-60M BASELINE INTEGRATION/QUALIFICATION PROGRAM TEST

SCHEDULE
testing will insure MS C/LRIP and FRP Decision requirements are tested well in advance of
decision reviews. The testing will address the items listed below:
20
• Airworthiness and performance requirements evaluation in accordance with Measures of

Effectiveness and Suitability (MOEs) and Critical Technical Parameters (CTPs). Full
details on MOES and CTPs may be found in the UH-60M Test and Evaluation Master Plan.
Attachment 4 contains detailed list of CTPs while Attachment 5 contains detailed list of
MOEs.
• Demonstration of MS C entrance criteria as defined.
• Ensure readiness of system performance, logistics support, and crew training are adequate
prior to OT Readiness Review # 2 and entrance into dedicated OT.
• Ensure all CTPs and ORD requirements are satisfactorily addressed prior to the FRP decision
review.
2.1.3.5.1.1 DT&E to Date

Design risk mitigation will capitalize on previous testing of UH-60 dual use technology
development programs along with the UH-60Q MEDEVAC program. Utilization of previous
test data, conducted outside the scope of the UH-60M Statement of Work (SOW), will provide
supporting data for the UH-60M DT&E with primary consideration to address requirements
while reducing program cost. Based on the anticipated maturity of these systems, it is expected
that production decision criteria can be satisfied. Results from these efforts will support system
level qualification during the SDD and PD phases, and are considered low risk developmental
technologies.
• DT&E of UH-60 MEDEVAC Helicopter

• UH-60 Wide Chord Blade Dual Use Application Program (DUAP)
• AFCC DUAP
• CEFS Test Program
2.1.3.5.1.2 Future DT&E

Future testing will be conducted on prototype aircraft. Tests will be conducted as an integrated
CTT approach to substantiate compliance with contractual airworthiness requirements.
Contractor and Government analyses and detailed test plans and test reports will provide data for
the Army's independent system assessment and evidence that the program is ready to proceed to
a FRP Decision Review. The Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC) will serve as the principal
Government test agency for Developmental Test. Test Incident Reports (TIR) will be generated
as appropriate during all DT and will be available to all T&E IPT members.
2.1.3.5.2 Modeling and Simulation

Both the Government and the Contractor, as part of the CTT, will be required to implement
modeling and simulation tools into the overall Qualification Test Program in an integrated
Simulation, Test, and Evaluation Process (STEP). Modeling and simulation will be used as an
“analysis” verification method. The objective of the STEP process shall be to utilize models and
simulations to streamline actual testing and to utilize data obtained during testing as feedback to
validate the models and simulations in order to optimize the overall evaluation process. The
21
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A) process for the candidate models will be
documented in the UH-60 Modernization Simulation Support Plan and adhere to the guidelines
and policies stipulated in DA PAM 5-11 Modeling and Simulation VV&A Process. Modeling
and simulation tools and test beds to be utilized in this phase of the program are identified below.
• Modular Unix-based Vulnerability Estimation Suite (MUVES), Stochastic Analysis of

Fragmenting Effects (SAFE) and Stochastic Quantitative Analysis of System Hierarchies
SQASH) (MUVES-S2).
• Advanced Tactical Combat Model (ATCOM)
• Infrared Susceptibility Evaluation.
• Contractor UH-60 Flight Dynamics Models.
• Chemical Agent Deposition Analysis for Rotorcraft Surfaces (CADARS)
2.1.3.5.3 OT&E Overview
Separate OT programs will be required for the UH-60M, UH-60M Upgrade and Block 2 aircraft
respectively to evaluate the operational performance, suitability, and survivability of the overall
UH-60 Fleet Upgrade Program. This section only addresses the planned OT requirements for the
UH-60M aircraft to support a UH-60M FRP. A UH-60M System Evaluation Plan, dated
December 2003, was developed to document the detailed evaluation strategy and overall test
effort for the entire development cycle. The System Evaluation Plan defines measures of
performance, evaluation methodology, and concepts for planned events (contractor, DT and OT)
which will provide data to support development of Event Design Plans, Detailed Test Plans, and
the SERs.
2.1.3.5.3.1 OT&E Phases
The operational testing of the UH-60M will be conducted in two phases. The Limited User Test
(LUT) in the SIL, completed 27 August 2004, was conducted during the SDD phase. The LUT
in the SIL SER supported the MS C/LRIP decision review by providing a limited evaluation of
operational pilot's effectiveness and suitability using the digital cockpit and the status of the
interoperability software. The Initial Operational Test (IOT) for the UH-60M aircraft was
conducted during the PD phase from 16 October – 21 November 2006 and culminated in an
evaluation of the system’s effectiveness, suitability, and survivability as input to a FRP Decision
Review. A follow-on Phase II OT for the HH-60M MEDEVAC was conducted from 24 – 26
January 2007 to evaluate the MEDEVAC specific equipment for effectiveness, suitability, and
survivability. Similarly, a Phase II OT for the JACS/CMWS configuration will be conducted in
March 2007 to investigate the effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the JACS and
CMWS systems as installed on the UH-60M. Both Phase II OT’s will provide input to the FRP
Decision Review.
22
2.1.3.5.3.2 OT&E Evaluation
An overall evaluation of effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the system will be

performed using DT, OT, and M&S data. The system will be evaluated based on the user’s
ORD, the approved COICs, and any additional issues developed by the ATEC System Team
(AST). Effectiveness will be expressed in terms of the aircraft’s ability to support the user's
utility helicopter requirements. Suitability will be expressed in terms of reliability,
maintainability, integrated logistics support (ILS), Manpower and Personnel Integration
(MANPRINT), and computer resource support. Survivability will be expressed in terms of the
system’s ability to conduct mission operations and provide crew protection under battlefield
environments including E3, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical, High Altitude Electromagnetic
Pulse, conventional ballistics, and electronic warfare.
2.1.3.5.3.3 OT&E Scenarios
During the UH-60M IOT&E, five production representative aircraft (Platoon size element)
accumulated over 248 hours over a 6-week period finishing 6 weeks before originally planned.
The IOT started with a COMEX to verify the aircraft communication systems, perform required
Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) certification, and to verify proper establishment of
the Tactical Internet. The test aircraft were operated as an Aviation Platoon from an Assault
Helicopter Company. Portions of the platoon’s parent company leadership and battalion staff,
from the Assault Helicopter Battalion and the Aviation Unit Maintenance (AVUM) Company,
also participated in the test. An Infantry Company and an Artillery Battery acted as the
supported unit. The test location is Fort Hood and the test unit was from the 4/3 ACR.
2.1.3.5.4 Live Fire Test and Evaluation
The UH-60M aircraft has been designated for Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) oversight
by the OSD, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). Based on review of
previous UH-60 data and consideration of cost, a waiver from full up LFT&E has been
approved. In lieu of a full-up UH-60M, system-level test, an alternate test program, outlined in
the UH-60M Aircraft Alternative LFT&E Plan, is being conducted to adequately address
identified ballistic vulnerability data voids. The alternate test program consists of both
static/quasi-static test shots at flight critical components and subsystems as well as system-level
test shots at an operational Ground Test Vehicle. The test results combined with a disciplined
modeling and simulation approach are being used to address survivability of the UH-60M
aircraft.
2.1.3.6 Reliability and Maintainability

The UH-60M MTBEMA growth plan developed by the UHPO RAM Integrated Product Team
(IPT) is shown in Figure 5. This plan recognizes the potential for long lead time to address and
implement fixes and recognizes that there is only a small portion of the aircraft that would have
fixes applied to generate growth.
23
The approach was to determine the current aircraft’s demonstrated reliability and to project the
aircraft’s future reliability based upon the anticipated corrective actions. Limited DT test results
for the M-unique portion of the system and contractor field data (the measured fielded
performance of the subset of equipment on the UH-60L using data collected through the
Unscheduled Maintenance Sample Data Collection (UMSDC) program) for the legacy portion
were used to estimate the system’s initial MTBEMA (Table 2). The Projection (blue) curve
assumes corrective actions are implemented instantaneously with immediate failure analysis and
corrective actions implemented into the product upon failure occurrence. The AMSAA Maturity
Projection Model (AMPM) was used for reliability projection of the M-unique portion of the
aircraft based on reasonable assumptions regarding fix effectiveness (80%) and management
strategy (fixing 95% of the failure rate) along with the system’s initial MTBEMA and the final
ORD threshold. The projection methodology is based on identification of fixes to failure modes
for which corrective actions are identified, but implementation is delayed. No significant fixes
are identified for the legacy portion that would be manifested through overall system reliability
growth. The demonstrated (pink) curve, derived from the Projection curve, is the demonstrated
path showing the delay for a batch of fixes to be implemented as a step function. Each step
represents a block update of FRACAS corrective actions in a UH-60M production lot. The
calendar time between the Projection curve and the Demonstrated curve is the lead-time
(typically 18 months) to design, manufacture, and implement the corrective actions. This curve
indicates that with current planning and the estimated initial reliability, the ORD MTBEMA
threshold will be achieved during production Lot V.
Reliability & Maintainability Actual Reliability Performance as

Requirements per ORD Para. of IOT
4.a.6
a. MTBMA => 40 Flt Hours MTBMA => 261.6 Flt Hours (Point Estimate)
b. MTBMAF => 15 Flt Hours MTBMAF => 130.8 Flt Hours (Point Estimate)
c. MTBEMA => 3.7 Flt Hours MTBEMA => 32.7 Flt Hours (Point Estimate)
d. Total MR =< 5.4 MMH/FH Total MR =< 3.7 MMH/FH
e. Unschd MR =< 2.1 MMH/FH Unschd MR =< 0.4 MMH/FH
TABLE 2. RAM CHANGES FOR MTBMAF, MTBEMA
24
M I F
S O R
Requirement C P Maturity @ 4,600 FH
T
E Lot V
Point Estimate
Scoring Conf #2 Lot IV
Lot III
Projection
Demonstrate
Lot II (Fixes Implemented)
IOTE &
Lot I
MS C Threshold
value ≥ 2.6
Flight Hours 0 355 505 638 2685 5625 10345 15625 20905
18 month Plus
Engineering &
st
1 Unit Fielded
Manufacturing Mid-
Holding legacy portion at assumed Lead Time Induction
constant MTBEMAlegacy = 4.5 Cycle
Lead Time
FIGURE 5: MTBEMA RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN
Per the UH-60M MTBEMA growth plan, a 4,600 FH test program with a typical lead-time to
design, manufacture, and implement the corrective actions (occurring during production Lot V)
is needed to mature the unique UH-60M equipment. It is anticipated, based on June 2004
program test planning for DT/OT, utilization of aircrafts to get the 4,600 flight hours would be
accrued as shown in Table 3 with the additional “lead-time” flight hours accrued into production
Lot V as shown. LRIP aircraft utilization is based on 20 FH per month utilization post delivery.
Aircraft Flight Hours Performance Period
IQ M1-M8 2365 Sep-03 May-08

LRIP M9-M18 2260 Aug-06 May-08
LRIP M9-M18 5200 Jun-08 July-10
LRIP M19-M30 4920 Jun-08 July-10
TABLE 3. FLIGHT HOURS ACCRUED

-
This issue examines the system's suitability for both combat missions and peacetime combat
training missions. Areas to be evaluated include reliability and maintainability (R&M), logistic
25
support, human factors, training, and safety. Reliability will be measured in mean time between
mission abort (MTBMA), mean time between mission affecting failure (MTBMAF), and mean
time between essential maintenance action (MTBEMA). Maintainability will address the
maintenance requirements associated with the use of the UH-60M. Maintainability will be
measured in maintenance ratio (MR). UH-60M R&M criteria reflect an improvement in the UH-
60A, bringing it to UH-60L standards. IOT RAM values were built on corrective actions
accumulated from the prototype, production, and LRIP aircraft, and these values will be
provided for the FRP DR. Full RAM maturity, to establish ORD threshold requirements, was
projected for 2010. However, as noted in table 2, the IOT RAM values significantly exceeded
the ORD threshold requirements.
2.1.4 Operation and Sustainment Phase (O&S)

This phase consists of life cycle sustainment operations and disposal activities upon retirement.
Sustainment will begin immediately with fielding of the first unit. The products of the integrated
logistics engineering efforts conducted during SDD and the early part of the PD phase will be
used to initially field and to sustain operations throughout the life of the system. Other major
activities will include investigating future modifications and upgrades to improve system
operations, enhance safe operations, and reduce costs.
2.2 System Capabilities, Requirements, and Design Considerations
2.2.1 Capabilities to be Achieved and Operational Concepts

The BLACK HAWK is a multi-role utility helicopter integrated into the total force system of
systems that provides operational (maneuver) capabilities enabling the force commander to
generate full spectrum dominance. It brings significant force projection, speed, and mobility to
the maneuver forces. The BLACK HAWK is designed with a significant inter-theater and intra-
theater self-deployment capability to support a power-projection force. Its capability to cover
extended distances (over 200 KM) helps to streamline the Reception Staging and Onward
Integration (RSOI) procedures and integrate forces into the battle quickly. BLACK HAWK can
operate at extended depth and has the speed and flexibility to rapidly adjust to changing
conditions. These attributes make it a cornerstone of future decisive operations.
With its versatility as a multiple role utility helicopter, BLACK HAWK allows the commander
to conduct overt, covert, and clandestine missions against the enemy's centers of gravity to
destroy key enemy capabilities. Providing precise navigation capability and immediate troop
mobility to the maneuver commander and flown by officers trained in combined arms operations,
BLACK HAWK provides the critical man-in-the-loop capability required for highly flexible
operations in rapidly changing conditions.
The UH-60M joint and combined force digital interconnectivity with other Command, Control,
Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems
provides commanders at all levels the accurate, real time information needed for the
26
synchronization of the battlespace. As a command and control platform BLACK HAWK

provides the real time tactical situational awareness key to decisive operations.
The mission of the UH-60M BLACK HAWK is to support the force commander as a highly
versatile utility platform operating in the extended battlespace increasing the total force
effectiveness throughout the spectrum of conflict and across the range of military distributed
operations. The defining capabilities of the BLACK HAWK, as they relate to the patterns of
operations, are:
Project the Force. The ability of the BLACK HAWK to rapidly deploy to any point on the
globe, using organic, airlift, sealift, or ground assets, supports the total force commander's goal
of quickly gaining and maintaining the initiative. BLACK HAWK can successfully maneuver
worldwide, twenty-four hours a day, in adverse environments to perform its missions. A fully
crashworthy, extended range, fuel management system gives the BLACK HAWK the flexibility
to operate at depth with extended endurance. BLACK HAWK has the capability for extended
intra-theater force projection for the insertion of ground forces in early entry operations.
Protect the Force. Situational awareness, system hardening/redundancy, improved aircraft

survivability equipment suites, crew protection, and superior maneuverability protect the
upgraded BLACK HAWK from the effects of conventional and non-conventional threat weapon
systems. The mobility and capability of rapid response provide the force safeguards against
defeat in a distributed, noncontiguous environment.
Gain Information Dominance. Integration of digital communication technology allows the UH-
60M to interface with other Army and Joint C4ISR systems to achieve superior situational
awareness. This capability provides the UH-60 unprecedented battlefield survivability and
effectiveness. In its C2 configuration, BLACK HAWK enhances decision makers' ability to
achieve information superiority by receiving, processing, and displaying an uninterrupted flow
of battlefield situational awareness information. BLACK HAWK interfaces with Army and
Joint C4ISR systems to quickly achieve superior situational awareness.
Shape the Battlespace. BLACK HAWK is part of a decisive force that shapes the battlespace at
the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. The speed, range, mobility, and flexibility of the
BLACK HAWK provide the commander the ability to dominate the expanded multidimensional
battlespace.
Decisive Operations. BLACK HAWK is an integral part of the total force commander's combat
capability to conduct decisive operations. Unmatched situational awareness, rapid
responsiveness, agility, and mobility give the commander the capability to defeat an adversary
by quickly massing effects on the noncontiguous battlefield.
Sustain and Transition the Force. The Upgraded BLACK HAWK has increased combat
capability, maneuverability, and survivability over current utility helicopter systems, while
maintaining a more sustainable logistics profile. Presenting a reduced logistics footprint,
27
BLACK HAWK can remain mission capable to support the commander under austere
conditions.
Employment. BLACK HAWK sets the worldwide military standard by defining the full
spectrum of utility helicopter operations. Missions are executed during day and night, in NBC
conditions, adverse weather, battlespace obscurants, and extreme environments across the full
range of military operations. BLACK HAWK dominates its battlespace by integrating digital
communications to provide superior situational awareness and to move rapidly to deliver combat
troops and equipment at exactly the right place and time. In its C2 configuration, BLACK
HAWK provides the commander with digital data and voice connectivity to with not only the
other members of the combined arms team, but also joint and coalition forces.
During wartime, BLACK HAWK is the primary means by which the Army conducts air assault
operations across the full spectrum of conflict. Used primarily as an infantry squad carrier, the
BLACK HAWK gives the force commander the capability to dominate and shape the battlespace
through rapid and agile maneuver throughout an expanded and asymmetrical operational area.
During Stability and Support Operations (SASO), the BLACK HAWK supports the JTF
commander in its key role as the primary early entry and rapid reaction force delivery platform.
BLACK HAWK also enhances and extends the capabilities of all commanders to initiate,
conduct, and sustain combat operations by providing internal and external lift of weapon
systems, supplies, and equipment at all echelons. The improved external lift performance of the
UH-60 Block 2 will provide a 9,000 to 10,000 pound capability fulfilling the need for rapid
aerial mobility of emerging weapons systems organic to the future objective force.
BLACK HAWK is the primary platform for airborne C2 providing full joint and combined
interoperability with other C4ISR elements to the commander at echelon above corps, corps,
division, and the ground and air maneuver brigade.
BLACK HAWK is configurable to provide counter-mobility through the Volcano mine delivery
system, medical evacuation with an advance MEDEVAC mission equipment package, and rapid
insertion/extraction with a Fast Rope Insertion/Extraction System (FRIES). As a national asset
the BLACK HAWK performs the role of passenger and equipment movement and is heavily
utilized in disaster relief such as flood and storm recovery operations, medical evacuation, fire
suppression, search and rescue, and VIP transport operations.
2.2.2 Key Performance Requirements (KPP)

Only two KPPs are required by the ORD for Recapitalization of the UH-60 BLACK HAWK
Utility Helicopter Fleet .
2.2.2.1 KPP1 External Load

The first KPP which must be accommodated is the increased lift capability under high & hot
conditions. This is being accomplished through the increased horsepower T700-701D engines
and the Wide Chord Blade (WCB). The UH-60M Baseline aircraft will be capable of
transporting an external load of 4,500 pounds at a pressure altitude of 4,000 feet and at an
ambient temperature of 95 degrees F to a combat radius of 135 km.
28
2.2.2.2 KPP2 Net-Ready

The second KPP which the UH-60M must accommodate is the Net Ready capability as
designated in Enclosure F of CJCSI 6212.01C, Net-Ready KPP for the Capability Development
Document (CDD). The UH-60M avionics integration, which includes the IDM, has been
developed with Net-Ready capability in mind. All activity interfaces; services; policy-
enforcement controls; and data-sharing of the Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference
Model (NCOW-RM) and Global Information Grid Key Interface Parameters (GIG-KIPs) will be
satisfied to the requirements of the specific Joint integrated architecture products (including data
correctness, data availability and data processing), and information assurance accreditation
designated as enterprise-level or critical.
2.2.2.3 Force Protection

The third KPP which the UH-60M must accommodate is Force Protection. The pilot and copilot
(95th percentile male torso in seated position) has been provided armor plating protection against
7.62mm armor piercing projectiles (threshold) and 14.5mm projectiles fired at 100-meter range
from all azimuths and vertical angles within the bottom hemisphere of the crew position while
the aircraft is in a level flight attitude. The cabin has been made compatible with the use of
modular armor blankets for passenger protection.
2.2.2.4 Survivability
The fourth KPP which the UH-60M must accommodate is Survivability. The aircraft has been
demonstrated to maintain no more than the existing UH-60L Infrared (IR) signature with infrared
suppression systems installed.
Passive countermeasure (CM) systems such as radar and laser warning, along with active CM
warning systems such as IR CM have been integrated into the UH-60M to provide no less
protection than existing (APR-39 and AVR-2) systems.
An active IR missile warning system with automated IR CM activation (Chaff and Flare
Dispensers), crew warning and manual override has been integrated into the UH-60M design.
Internal fuel cells have been qualified to be self-sealing when penetrated by fully tumbled
7.62mm (threshold) and 14.5mm projectiles impacting at 1600 fps.
2.2.2.5 Reliability
Though not a KPP, another key performance enhancing characteristic that is being developed is
improved Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM). Every opportunity to exploit the
information available through Built-In-Tests (BIT) to reduce the time required for problem
detection and correction. Requirements for an 8000 hr airframe life are flowed to the individual
components. RAM data is being tracked on all UH-60Ms built to date to ascertain if the UH-
60M configuration is of greater reliability than the legacy UH-60L configuration.
29
2.2.3 Certification Requirements
2.2.3.1 DoD Information Technology Security Certification & Accreditation Process

(DITSCAP)
Information Systems Security Engineering (ISSE) is an integral part of the overall UH-60M
Modernization Program effort. ISSE supports the Certification and Accreditation (C&A)
process as described in the DoD Information Technology Security Certification and
Accreditation Process (DITSCAP) and the Technology Protection process described in the DoD
Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 30 Oct 2002 – Formerly the DoD 5000.2-R: Mandatory
Procedures of Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP), 5 Apr 2002. The UH-60M Project
Office has developed and received approval for its Information Assurance Strategy. In addition,
the UH-60M has completed Phase 1 and 2 of the System Security Accreditation Agreement
(SSAA).
2.2.3.2 J6 Interoperability & Supportability Certification

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and the Joint Interoperability Test Command
(JITC) will participate in planning and will witness developmental and operational test events
related to interoperability certification as required. Maximum use of developmental test events
and Intra-Army certification test efforts at the Central Technical Support Facility (CTSF) will be
used to avoid duplicate test efforts. Presently the UH-60M PMO is working with the CTSF and
JITC to develop test concepts, plans and funding requirements.
2.2.3.3 Interoperability Certification issued by the Central Technical Support Facility

The goal is to have a complete Intra Army Interoperability Certification (IAIC), in conjunction
with Army Software Block, prior to First Unit Equipped (FUE). This IAIC will include an
Interoperability Certification issued by the CTSF located at Ft. Hood, TX. The UH-60M will
undergo an Interoperability Assessment by the CTSF prior to our Operational Test (OT), which
will be based on the Software Block 1 communications architecture and JVMF message set.
Aircraft software will be updated to be compatible with the Software Block 3 communications
architecture and JVMF message set as soon as the associated requirements and interface
definition documentation is baselined.
2.2.3.4 Spectrum Certification Compliance

The UH-60M project office, in accordance with AR 5-12 (paragraph 4 b (3)) and following the
guidance of DoD Handbook 237, has submitted and has on file with the Joint Spectrum Center a
valid 1494 as required for each electromagnetic emitter or receiver on the aircraft. The UH-
60M has no new emitters only some additional receivers such as the laser detecting set.
2.2.4 Design Considerations

The threshold requirements contained in the UH-60M ORD represent minimum capabilities to
be delivered by FUE. If future mission requirements are defined, the ORD will be updated to
incorporate capabilities through incremental development. Specifically, incremental insertion of
technologies, such as a composite tailcone, fly-by-wire flight control system, and communication
30
upgrades will be incorporated during the UH-60M Upgrade Program. Future improvements will
be initiated at the direction of the UH PO to achieve the objective capabilities outlined in the
ORD.
2.3 Systems Engineering Organizational Integration
2.3.1 UH-60M Chief Engineer

The Chief Engineer is the technical lead for the integration effort and leads the Engineering
IPT. The Chief Engineer is responsible for working with the embedded Systems Engineers from
the AED, in cooperation with the sub-IPT leads, to insure that Airworthiness and Qualification
standards are met on time in support of the various program milestones.
2.3.2 DCMA Engineering

DCMA at Sikorsky has a sub-group dedicated to monitoring engineering activities. DCMA
Engineering provides systems engineering support on the UH-60M Program via participation in
IPT’s, participation in Program Reviews, participation in flight test/ground testing, witnessing
software component/integration testing, conduct of engineering process audits, review of Class
I/II changes, review/comment on engineering management plans, investigation/reporting
technical issues, access/audit of contractor engineering management databases, and audits of
contract requirements for compliance. DCMA Engineering provides Monthly Status Reports on
identified cost, schedule and technical issues. Significant issues are transmitted immediately via
telecom or e-mail.
2.3.3 IPTs
The IPT organization of the UH-60M Baseline Program is shown in Figure 6. The organization
is supplemented by matrix support from other Government as well as Support Contractors filling
critical needs. The UH-60M Baseline Program is managed through an IPT management structure
with an active Government and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (SAC) representation on all IPTs.
The UH-60M PM level IPT provides day-to-day functional management of the program. IPT
Leads are responsible for cost, schedule, and performance for their allocations of the Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS). The organization is designed to provide points of contact for the
technical, program management, operations, and specialty functions. Each IPT has weekly
meetings normally through telecons or video teleconferencing (VTC) that includes prime
contractor technical counterparts. Weekly program management reviews (PMR) in the form of
VTCs includes all IPT leads plus the Program Management Working Group (PMWG). This
facilitates the interchange of information between the Government and Contractor, which has
been and remains a vital component of a continuous quality improvement environment. The
Army Systems Acquisition Review Committee (ASARC) provides oversight and review support
to the UH-60M PM and the MDA as the program proceeds through the acquisition life cycle.
Integrated Manufacturing (IM)/Operations, Air Vehicle (AV) and Mission Equipment Packages
(MEP).
31
Program Managers
Working Group (PMWG)
LTC(P) R. (Chip) Lunn (G)
Bob Mastronardi (S)
Business IPT Test IPT Engineering IPT Logistics IPT

Rick Hubert (G) Forrest Collier (G) Kelvin Nunn (G) John Smith (G)
P. Trompetter (S) Robert Stewart (S) Robert Frawley (S) George Klein (S)
UH-60M Baseline
Scott Silies (G)
Robert Frawley (S)
Systems Engineering
Sub-IPT
Eric Martin (G)
Anthony Saccullo (S)
Air Vehicle Sub-IPT

Scott Silies (G)
Brian Curina (S)
Integrated Manufacturing
Sub-IPT
Dimitri Gerousis (G)
Ray Burke (S)
Mission Equipment
Packages Sub-IPT
Heather Hone (G)
Dave Zavednak (S)
FIGURE 6. UH-60M BASELINE IPT STRUCTURE
2.3.3.1 UH-60M Baseline IPT Structure

The Executive Steering Group is composed of the Utility Helicopter PO, the Program Executive
Officer, Aviation, and their counterparts in SAC. This group is responsible for program
oversight, direction, and providing resources. The UH-60 PO exercises programmatic, technical,
logistical, and financial control of the UH-60M Modernization Program. Communication
between the members of the Executive Steering Group is maintained through weekly telecoms.
This program integrates multiple products managed by other Government agencies and project
offices. The UH PM and his staff continuously focus their attention on implementing a program
to meet the user’s needs while incorporating cost reduction initiatives and work share
arrangements as appropriate.
The Program Managers Working Group (PMWG) is comprised of the UH-60M PM and his
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation counterpart. They are responsible for planning, execution,
integrated product development, design, and life cycle management to deliver a cost effective
and supportable aircraft that meets the user’s requirements on schedule. Subordinate IPTs are
responsible for specific functional areas and report directly to the PMWG. Each IPT is composed
of representatives from other Government agencies and military organizations, industry,
academia, and other sources as appropriate. The UH-60M PM will form Tiger Teams to resolve
specific issues.
32
Funding and resources for the Government IPTs are managed by the IPT leads though an internal
operating budget (IOB) process whereby the IPT leads allocate funding to support both
Government and support contractor personnel to perform the work of their appropriate IPTs.
The IPT Leads have responsibility for managing their allocated WBS elements (see Attachment
3) to remain within cost and on schedule. In addition, each Government IPT Lead has received
extensive Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Techniques and Tools Training.
Government IPT leads and Sub-IPT leads are required to be Level III certified in their respective
field as defined in the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). These
DAIWA certifications involve satisfactory completion of a series of courses taught by the
Defense Acquisition University as well as having served a certain amount of time in that
DAIWA specialty.
Likewise, the prime contractor's management organization designates certain responsible

individuals, usually IPT leads, to act as control account managers (CAMs) to account for the
budget allocated to their respective workpackages. Workpackages are descriptions of work
which are scheduled as either event based or time based tasks which are tracked in the integrated
master schedule against which Earned Value Management is computed. Government and Prime
Contract IPT leads monitor earned value on a monthly basis to ascertain if the program is
proceeding according the planned workpackages. Prime Contractor's CAMs are required to be
company certified through attendance of EVM classes.
The Engineering IPT, Business Management IPT, Logistics Management IPT and the Test
Management IPT are the program’s primary IPTs and are subordinate to the PMWG. Systems
Engineering (SE), Integrated Manufacturing (IM)/Operations, Air Vehicle (AV) and Mission
Equipment Packages (MEP) are subordinate IPTs (sub-IPTs) to the Engineering IPT. Additional
sub-IPTs may be added as required to support any IPT. The Government and the Contractor will
provide IPT co-leads for each IPT. Each IPT derives the authority to make decisions through
empowerment from their respective “chain of command.” Unresolved issues are raised to the
PMWG. Charters for the IPTs and Sub-IPTs are enclosed as Attachment 2.
2.3.3.2 Contractor Organization

The structure of the Sikorsky UH-60M team supports the Army’s Integrated Product and Process
Development (IPPD) approach. The IPPD approach systematically employs the teaming of core
competency areas to integrate and concurrently apply all necessary processes to produce an
effective and efficient product that satisfies the customer’s needs. Each IPT team is assigned a
Sikorsky CAMs who shares lead responsibilities with their Army counterpart. As prime
contractor Sikorsky flows the appropriate systems engineering requirements to its respective
subcontractors. The development and eventual approval of numerous documents have been
facilitated by this IPT structure between the Government and Sikorsky. Figure 7 shows Sikorsky
organizational structure.
33
Doug Shidler
VP BLACK
Don Bossardet Mark Rowland

P3I Project Manager Project Manager
Bob Mastronardi
UH-60M Project Manager
Tom Kaczyinski
GFE Coordinator
Mathew Lisk
Admin Support
Paul Trompetter George Klein Robert Frawley Judy Serra Ray Burke Len Pinaud
Business Manager ILS Manager UH-60M Chief Engineer Program Plans & Controls Operations Major Subs
Merle Hickok
John P
McLean Assistant ILS Mgr Bob Stewart Tony Saccullo
Rick Brede Bob Piekarz
Paul Rado
Contracts Test System Engineering
Lead Scheduler Scheduler Final Assy Ops
Mike Grant
Dorothy Hardy Attributes Barbara England Rajani Velaparthi Pete Ladyko
Finance
Data Management Scheduling Assistant WPB Hangar Ops
Chris Valentine
Financial Analyst Dave Zavednak Brian Curina Silvia Rodriguez Mike Spears
Avionics Air Vehicle Scheduler Troy Operations
Darlene Ridolfi
Financial Analyst
Dan Cooper Rich Goodrich
Avionics Test Chuck Evanich
Mike Cavallaro Electrical
Material
Financial Analyst
Arnis Buza Mike Petrucci
Systems Integration Airframe
Doug Kinkead Dean Muccio

Elec Flight Controls
Propulsion
CAM = Control Account Manager
Denise Crowe
CAMs Avionics Design
John Scheib
Structures
Ira Zoock
Flight Mgmt System
FIGURE 7. SIKORSKY ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
2.3.3.3 Engineering IPT

The Engineering IPT will coordinate the efforts of the Systems Engineering (SE) sub-IPT, the
Air Vehicle (AV) sub-IPT, the MEP sub-IPT and the Integrated Manufacturing (IM) sub-IPT to
ensure that the allocated design achieves a system solution that meets specification and schedule
requirements of the contract. The sub-IPTs are structured to perform essential functions within
the systems engineering process. The SE sub-IPT will prepare and maintain an effective SEP for
the UH-60M Modernization Program and accomplish requirements analyses and allocation. The
MEP sub-IPT, AVeh sub-IPT and IM sub-IPT will synthesize major aircraft parts:
Hardware/software subsystems: and perform integration and assembly tasks. The Engineering
IPT will ensure that aircraft delivered to test are built to identified standards and are compliant
with product specifications. Responsibilities include:
• Identify processes and standards for systems integration.
• Set overall technical objective within contract requirements, and assist sub-IPTs in
identifying intermediate goals leading to the objective system.
• Ensure that each sub-IPT is properly resourced to accomplish its goals.
34
• Provide timely flow of information to coordinating and superior IPTs.

The Engineering IPT is led by the UH-60M Chief Engineer who reports directly to the UH-60M
Product Manager and Deputy Product Manager. Sub-IPT leads focus on their respective
technical areas and report directly to the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer interfaces with the
other IPT leads and has the final approval authority over technical issues within the UH-60M
Modernization Program . The Chief Engineer also budgets the funding for engineering support
from other government agencies supporting the UH-60M Modernization Program technical
analyses to include programmatic contract support. The Chief Engineer’s counterpart within the
prime contractor’s organization has similar responsibilities over the prime contractor’s
engineering staff and provides subcontractors with technical direction. The UH-60M Chief
Engineer coordinates with the chief engineers of other government programs which provide GFE
to the UH-60M in order to coordinate and resolve technical interface issues and funding as
necessary.
2.3.3.3.1 Systems Engineering Sub-IPT

The Systems Engineering sub-IPT will develop and execute an interdisciplinary program plan to
ensure an integrated and life cycle balanced set of system product and process solutions to
satisfy the warfighter’s requirements. Among the SE sub-IPT responsibilities are:
• Executing and managing a structured systems engineering approach that provides a life cycle
balanced set of system product and process solutions.
• Performing system requirements analysis, managing changes to the system requirements
within contract requirements, and tracking achievement of the system requirements. The tool
used for this task is a commercial software product from Telelogic called Dynamic Object
Oriented Requirements System (DOORS)..
• Facilitating the development and completion of entrance and exit criteria for major
performance-related program reviews (e.g. PDR, CDR) as they relate to technical issues.
• Conducting, in conjunction with other IPTs, trade studies and analyses that consider cost,
schedule, and performance as independent variables.
• Conducting technical risk assessments, developing mitigation plans, and tracking technical
risk status
• Maintaining and updating the SEP so that it remains a living document that defines the
technical aspects of government and contractor programmatic activities and responsibilities.
Metric development evolves from the IPTs. SAC is developing a SEMP for the UH-60M
Upgrade Program.
The System Engineering IPT is lead by the UH-60M System Engineer who reports directly to the
UH-60M Chief Engineer. The System Engineer manages the system engineering related issues
within the UH-60M Modernization Program. The system engineer’s counterpart within the
prime contractor’s organization has similar responsibilities over the prime contractor’s system
engineering staff and provides internal liaison with the Contractor’s program staff and functional
leads.
35
The SE-IPT Lead is the UH-60M program Risk Manager. Risk Management is achieved
through a robust process of tracking each risk and re-evaluating its status on a monthly basis as
documented in the UH-60M Risk Management Plan. The risk management tools consist of a
combination of Microsoft Access and Power Point documents.
2.3.3.3.2 Air Vehicle Sub-IPT

The Air Vehicle Sub-IPT is lead by UH-60M Air Vehicle Lead Engineer and derives the
authority to make decisions through empowerment from the UH-60M Chief Engineer.
The Air Vehicle sub-IPT is responsible for:
• Developing and integrating all components of the aircraft to include airframe, mission
computers, avionics, navigation, communications, mission critical software, propulsion, and
flight control systems.
• Chairing the Simulation Based Acquisition Team, evaluating and recommending alternative
design concepts via in-house simulation and supporting the SE sub-IPT trade studies.
• Validating the technical baseline
• Developing, in conjunction with other IPTs, ECPs to support modifications.
2.3.3.3.3 Integrated Manufacturing Sub-IPT

The Integrated Manufacturing/Operations Sub-IPT is lead by the UH-60M Integrated
Manufacturing/Operations Lead and derives the authority to make decisions through
empowerment from the UH-60M Chief Engineer.
The Operations sub-IPT’s primary purpose is to ensure that the product being built is producible
at the required rate, identify production risks and develop strategies to address risks. Among its
specific responsibilities are:
• Manage the Process Modeling and Simulation effort
• Develop and utilize capacity analysis models. Capacity analysis is also addressed as part of
supplier’s source risk assessment.
• Identification and management of critical path production processes
• Identification and management of parts critical to maintaining a smooth production flow
• Validate requests for additional tooling
• Identification and management of Industrial Base issues
• Develop databases capturing production costs and other production data
• Evaluate long lead procurement requirements
• Develop production cost estimates
• Conduct process proofing
• Conduct production surveillance
36
• Review hazardous material management program plan progress reports

• Update the Programmatic Environmental, Safety and Health Evaluation (PESHE)
• Develop and implement a Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) program
2.3.3.3.4 Mission Equipment Package Sub-IPT

The MEP sub-IPT is lead by a PM designated engineer and derives the authority to make
decisions through empowerment from the UH-60M Chief Engineer.
The MEP sub-IPT is responsible for:
• Developing, integrating and controlling the digital interfaces of all digitization components
of the system to include mission computers, mission critical software, on and off system
digital test, diagnostic, and measurement equipment (to include integrated electronic
technical manuals), digital maintenance equipment, on and off system training devices, and
interfaces with simulation and models.
• Manage software development effort for all aircraft software systems including developing
Software Engineering Change Proposals to support modifications.
• Preparing and maintaining software management and support plans such as: software
Engineering Change Proposals, Post Deployment Software Support plans, Technical Data
Packages, Electronic Warfare Compliance, Interface Control Documents, Joint Technical
Architecture & DII-COE Compliance, Digital Technical, Operational, and System
Architectures, Flight Simulators, Software Quality Control /Production Assurance Plans,
Computer Resource Life-Cycle Management Plan.
• Information Assurance
• SIL & IBTF
• Component Level E2.2.1 testing
2.3.3.4 Business Management IPT

The Business Management IPT is lead by UH-60M PM designated business lead and derives the
authority to make decisions through empowerment from the UH-60M PM.
The Business Management IPT will develop and/or provide input to appropriate program,
acquisition, and milestone documentation/products and processes throughout the program’s life
cycle. The team is responsible for:
• Coordinating Milestone Requirements with the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA),
coordinating requirements with the other program IPTs, monitoring progress towards
accomplishment of the requirements, and preparing and supporting the Milestone Review.
• Activities in support of contract pre-award, post-award, and termination. Efforts include
preparation of contract documentation, contract assembly, and Functional Requirements
Authentication Board (FRAB) preparation and support.
• Contract Monitoring. The Business Management IPT will determine requirements and
develop an approach for earned value management/cost reporting.
37
• Supporting, developing, and executing the CAIV Plan by providing personnel and cost data
to support decisions.
• Developing, in coordination with the other IPTs, an integrated program schedule. The
schedule will be maintained and will be used as a basis for excursions regarding the impact
of activities progressing at a faster or slower pace than planned.
• Supporting the PMWG as required by maintaining action item data bases, personnel rosters,
meeting minutes and the program library as required.
• Assessing and recommending resource courses of action, including developing and
maintaining baseline cost estimates and other cost documentation and providing inputs to
planning and budgeting processes.
2.3.3.5 Logistics Management IPT

The Logistics Management IPT is lead by a UH-60M PM designated logistics lead and derives
the authority to make decisions through empowerment from the UH-60M PM.
The Logistics Management IPT is responsible for planning, developing and executing an
integrated logistics support plan to support the UH-60M Upgrade Program throughout the life
cycle. This effort includes the following:
• Developing support requirements related to readiness objectives, to design and to each other
• Integrating support considerations effectively into the system and equipment design
• Identifying the most cost-effective approach to supporting the system when it is fielded
• Ensuring that the required support structure elements are developed and acquired.
Products and functions include: Integrated Logistics Support Plan, Post-Production Support
Plan, Induction and Fielding Plan, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM) Assessments
and Recommended Trades, Maintenance Training Devices / Simulators, inputs to System
Training Plan, Ground Support Equipment (GSE), Test Measurement and Diagnostics
Equipment (TMDE), and Publications
The Logistics Management IPT has developed and maintains info necessary for training of
maintenance personnel, documentation for tech manuals, and provisioning of spare parts. The
Logistics Management IPT continues to mature several concepts initiated at the beginning of the
program. They include but are not limited to:
• Interim Contractor Support (ICS)
• Lifecycle Support Concept
• Hardware Support Concept
• Field Maintenance
• Sustainment Base Management
• Depot Maintenance
• Software Support Concept
38
• Supply
• Training
2.3.3.6 Test Management IPT

The Test Management IPT is lead by a UH-60M PM designated test lead and derives the
authority to make decisions through empowerment from the UH-60M PM.
The Test Management IPT will manage all test and evaluation activities for the UH-60M
Upgrade Program. Its primary purpose is to optimize the use of appropriate Test &Evaluation
(T&E) expertise, instrumentation, facilities, simulators, and models to achieve the
integration/qualification goals of the program, while adhering to the program master schedule
and minimizing cost. Specific responsibilities are:
• Providing a forum in which to develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive, cost
effective T&E program, accomplished through integration of T&E requirements, planning,
scheduling, implementation, reporting, and problem resolution.
• Identifying and coordinating data, resources, models, and simulation to provide early
validation of requirements and thus reduce program risk.
• Optimizing commonality of procedures, techniques, measures of effectiveness, data
collection and reduction to support the independent analysis and evaluation of technical,
operational and production testing.
• Supporting the development of appropriate training program modifications.
• Minimizing impact of program test schedule changes and providing direction to maintain the
program schedule for testing.
2.4 Systems Engineering Process

The system engineering process for the UH-60M facilitates accomplishment of the technical
goals of the program. The process guides efforts to maximize operational suitability and
effectiveness within cost, weight and schedule constraints. The objective is to translate
operational needs into a description of system parameters that defines the optimum UH-60M
System. It also integrates related technical parameters to provide compatibility of all physical,
functional and program interfaces to optimize the complete system. The top-level system
engineering process of the program is taken from IEEE 1220 and summarized in Figure 8. An
organized top-down approach has been established to develop, derive, and define the
requirements; implement the design; integrate the manufactured products into an operational air
vehicle; and confirm that the produced air vehicle demonstrates its specified performance. There
are two key aspects of the system engineering process; 1) the process is iterative at each step,
and 2) the same basic actions are required at each major level of development (system, segment,
and configuration item (CI).
The Government manages the systems engineering processes at the UH-60M System level
through the UH-60M Systems Engineering Sub-IPT. All the UH-60M IPTs have an input to the
39
program’s system engineering processes. Systems engineering processes between a family of

systems are coordinated between the respective platform Systems Engineers as necessary. This
may involve commonality of components and subsystem with other models of UH-60 or other
Army aviation platforms.
Systems engineering processes at the subsystem level are coordinated by the prime contractor’s
system engineer and are imposed through contractual requirements between the prime contractor
and the respective supplier.
The implementation of the UH-60M system engineering approach is documented in the

following sections.
Systems
Analysis
Requirements and Control
Analysis
Requirements
Loop
Functional
Analysis
Design
Loop
Synthesis
Verification
FIGURE 8. UH-60M SYSTEM ENGINEERING PROCESS
2.4.1 Requirements
2.4.1.1 Requirements Development/Analysis

The ORD for Recapitalization of the UH-60 BLACK HAWK Utility Helicopter Fleet, calls for
increased capabilities as technology matures through the use of evolutionary requirements. ORD
requirements were captured and further derived in AVNS-PRF-10002 and the Segment
Specifications.
Requirement analysis is the process of analyzing higher-level requirements and deriving lower-
level interface, functional and performance requirements that satisfy the high-level requirement.
40
Inputs to the UH-60M requirements analysis process included customer needs and objectives,
missions, measures of effectiveness/suitability, environments, Mission Needs Statements, ORD
Documents as well as outputs requirements from the previous (higher-level) application of the
system engineering process. The output of the process is a set of functional, interface and
performance requirements. The example below, Figure 9, describes the requirement (mission)
analysis process that was implemented on the UH-60M that translated user requirements into the
UH-60M System Performance Specification, AVNS-PRF-10002.
Requirements
Analysis
Define project and

Define customer Define external
enterprise
expectations constraints
constraints
Define operational Define measures

scenarios of effectiveness
Define system Define interfaces Define utilization Define life cycle

boundaries environments process concepts
Define
Define functional
performance
requirements
requirements
Define technical
Define modes of Define design Define human
performance
operations characteristics factors
measures
Establish requirements
baseline
Operational Functional Design

view view view
FIGURE 9. REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS PROCESS
Mission Analysis is the process of analyzing customer needs, objectives, and requirements in the
context of UH-60M missions, system utilization and environments. Sikorsky performed a
mission analysis during the conceptual phase of the Sikorsky UH-60 Modernization study. The
Sikorsky mission analysis was based upon the UH-60 BLACK HAWK Helicopter Operational
Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP). The results of this completed activity combined
with similar US Army analyses are reflected in the ORD and AVNS-PRF-10002. Requirements
in the System Performance Specification have been developed to satisfy US Army needs and
maximize system cost-effectiveness over the system life cycle. System Specification
41
requirements are based upon Operational Requirements Documents, UH-60 Mission Needs, US
Army UH-60 Analysis of Alternatives and Sikorsky mission and performance analysis.
During the RR and SDD phases of the UH-60M Modernization Program, initial mission
requirements were baselined and continually refined to meet the mission and environment to
fully support overall system definition through the trade study process. Sikorsky conducts
relative worth evaluations to quantify operational effectiveness of trade/design options in terms
of overall mission capability. The operational effectiveness data is combined with peacetime life
cycle costs to identify the trade/design alternative that maximizes system cost effectiveness. The
evaluation method is used for system and segment level trades. Analytical models and man-in-
the-loop simulations are used as appropriate and, based on the tools employed, measures are
developed to quantify mission effectiveness.
2.4.1.2 Functional Analysis

Functional analysis transforms the interface, functional and performance requirements generated
by the requirements analysis process into a coherent description of system functions that can be
used to support the Design Synthesis process. This description of functions can be captured as a
model within the database as seen in Figure 10. The analysis defines the system states, modes,
functions, external and functional interfaces. Requirements derived from the requirements
analysis process are allocated to the system functions in order to control and minimize control
interfaces. Functional analyses are conducted to define the system, segment, and configuration
item functional characteristics needed to accomplish mission objectives. These analyses are
required to identify the individual functions and interfaces necessary to permit the development
of the architecture and the evolution of a design as the system development progresses. For each
critical segment-level functional allocation, system, segment and configuration item interactions
are specified and expanded. Documentation is developed which characterizes the hardware-to-
software and software-to- software interactions to further refine functional analyses to the
hardware and software configuration item level.
At the segment level, sensitivities are generated to evaluate and understand relationships
between performance parameters and operational requirements. These detailed, segment-level
functional and performance analyses are the basis for the characterization of system
requirements in the Prime and Critical Items Development Specifications (CIDS) (hardware),
Sikorsky Engineering Specifications (SES), source control drawings and Software Requirements
Specifications (SRS).
Functional performance allocation decomposes system level requirements until a level is reached
where a specific configuration item can be designed to fulfill the stated requirements. System
performance and design requirements are allocated to each function identified in the functional
analysis. Each function is defined in terms of performance requirements and associated design
constraints. At the completion of this portion of the process, the functional architecture is
established consisting of a set of functions and their corresponding performance requirements. A
“Requirements Loop” is created as requirements developed in the requirements analysis process
are revisited as a result of the Functional Analysis and Allocation process. This is caused by the
emergence of functional issues that require re-examination of higher level requirements.
42
Functional analysis
Analyze Define Allocate

functional functional performance
behaviors interfaces requirements
Define
Define subfunction
subfunctions states and
modes
Define functional Define safety

Define functional Define data and
failure modes and monitoring
timelines control flows effects functions
Establish functional
architecture
FIGURE 10. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCESS
2.4.1.3 Synthesis
Synthesis, Figure 11, is the process of translating functions and constraints developed in the
Functional Analysis and Allocation process into a physical architecture as well as defining the
physical interfaces. The physical architecture is supported by trade studies and effectiveness
analysis. Requirements allocations sheets map the functions and their corresponding functional
and performance requirements to the physical architecture. The objective of design synthesis is
to combine and restructure hardware and software components in such a way as to achieve a
design solution capable of satisfying the stated requirements. During concept development, the
synthesis process defines the basic relationship between sub-systems. During preliminary and
detail design phases, subsystem and component are defined in more detailed as are all interfaces.
The “Design Loop” involves revisiting the functional architecture to verify that the physical
architecture developed is consistent with the functional and performance requirements. The re-
evaluation may result from design issues that arise as the physical architecture is developed and
practical limitations are exceeded. The re-evaluation may result in changes in the requirements,
re-allocation of the functions and/or a re-allocation of the function to physical architecture map.
The digital mockup (DMU) is a tool that Sikorsky uses to assist in this transformation. The
DMU is a central database, which contains the three dimensional geometric designs that has
been generated by the computer aided graphics system, CATIA. The DMU is a tool that
Sikorsky uses to support the spatial integration of the aircraft components and sub-systems. The
43
DMU allows designers to achieve a sufficient level of spatial integration to control physical
interfaces and to verify mechanical interfaces. The DMU will be utilized on the UH-60M to
reduce the overall cost, risk and schedule time for the program. Sikorsky utilizes complete
DMU designs for new air vehicles. In the case of UH-60M, a hybrid (or partial) DMU approach
will be pursued utilizing CATIA models with sufficient accuracy for wiring harness tools and
Technical Publication illustrations. For the UH-60M, the DMU models that include geometry
suitable for the direct application to the manufacturing of tools, parts or assemblies will be used
for new or modified contractor furnished equipment or components.
Synthesis
Group and Identify design

allocate functions solution alternatives
Assess safety and

Assess life cycle Assess technology
environmental
quality factors requirements
hazards
Define design and

performance Define physical
characteristics interfaces
Identify
Identify off-the-shelf Identify make or buy
standardization
availability alternatives
opportunities
Assess failure Assess design

Develop models and Assess
modes, effects, and testability needs capacity to evolve
fabricate prototypes
criticality
Final design
Initiate evolutionary Produce integrated

development data package
Establish design
architecture
FIGURE 11. SYNTHESIS PROCESS
2.4.1.4 Requirements Verification

Throughout the program, requirements specified in the top level performance specification and
the segment specifications are verified according to the methods (inspection, demonstration,
analysis, or test) specified in section 4 of these specifications. All of the section 3 requirements
of the specifications are captured in the DOORS database and are assigned a Program Unique
Identifier (PUI). There are over 2,600 PUI contained within the top level performance
specification and the four UH-60M Baseline segment specifications. To document the
requirement verification, Sikorsky sends a Memorandum For Record (MFR) form to the
Government which states which PUI(s) is (are) ready for verification, the method(s) of
verification, and the documentation where the proof of verification may be found. When the
44
Government concurs the specific PUIs are verified, it returns the MFR to the contractor with
concurrence and Sikorsky updates it’s DOORS database accordingly. If the Government deems
the requirement has not been adequately verified by the means stated in the MFR, it returns the
MFR with non-concurrence and an explanation of the deficiency for Sikorsky to resubmit.
2.4.1.5 Requirements Flowdown

The requirement flowdown process originates with the US Army’s ORD and the linkage to the
Performance Specification. Analysis of requirement documentation and discussions with the user
resulted in development and establishment of the System Performance Specification, AVNS-
PRF-10002. The Performance Specification establishes the baseline performance for the unique
UH-60M requirements, and the UH-60 MCB. Requirements flowdown links performance
specification requirements to applicable system segments and subsequent configuration items.
These requirements are allocated first to all system elements (Avionics, Airframe, Dynamics,
GSE, and Integrated Logistics Support) and then decomposed and further allocated to
components and modules that map to the Contractor’s WBS.
This hierarchy of the flowdown of requirements and performance allocations establishes clear
traceability throughout the system from the source (UH-60M System Performance Specification)
to the segment and configuration item (CI) levels. In all cases, each technical performance
requirement is traceable to the applicable higher and lower levels. All lower level “children”
requirements are traceable to a “parent” requirement. When compliance with a performance
requirement calls for more than one subsystem to accomplish the specified functionality, an
interface is identified between the affected subsystems. Interface requirements are developed for
new or unique requirements to specify the role each subsystem has in satisfying the requirement.
The UH-60M System Performance Specification will consist of functional, allocated and
physical baselines defined by AVNS-PRF-10002, Performance Item Specifications (Segment
Specifications) plus SRS and Interface Requirements Specification (IRS) and Product
Specifications (Sikorsky Engineering Specification, Source Control Drawings, Vendor
Specifications), respectively. The specification and levels are illustrated in Figure 12.
45
UH- User Requirements

60M
FUNCTIONAL AVNS-
Performance
BASELINE 10002E Requirements
UH-60M
Performance
ALLOCATED Avionics Airframe GSE Segment

Dynamics Requirements
BASELINE
Avionics System InterSegmen

t
InterSegmen
t
InterSegmen
t
Segment Design ICD ICD ICD
Document (SSDD)
PRODUCT IntraSegment
H H
BASELINE W W
ICD Intermediate
&
Organization
SW SW H H H H
IntraSegmen
ICD
CIs CIs W W W W Lower Level
CI Requirements
FIGURE 12. UH-60M SPECIFICATION TREE
Requirements flowdown to the Detail Item Specification level will be performed during the SDD
phase. Detail Items are defined at the fourth or fifth level of the WBS for flowdown. Segment
leads will participate in a flowdown of requirements through the allocation of segment level
requirements to the individual Detail Item Specifications. Physical legacy interfaces will be
defined by installation drawings and wiring diagrams. Legacy Detail Items Specification will use
existing CIDS, SESs, source/specification control drawings and contractor specifications where
applicable. As with segment level interfaces, all unique UH-60M and UH-60M MEDEVAC
unique items will use Interface Control Drawings/Documents (ICD) to define interfaces. UH-
60M unique detail requirements will be documented in CIDS, SESs, source/specification control
drawings and contractor specification where applicable.
2.4.1.6 Tools and Resources

Several areas of the system development have included a functional analysis type approach. The
Performance Specification was established utilizing a top-down functional analysis. The upper
level layers of functionality of the system were developed in order to provide organizational
TM
structure to the document. The process was facilitated by Core , a systems engineering
software tool that provides graphical and textual development of system models, requirements
management and traceability, document development, and discrete event simulation. The
Government was able to supplement/support the Prime Contractor’s efforts by establishing an
46
independent database that provided a constant capability to verify the Prime Contractor
TM TM
DOORS database. The Core database was utilized on numerous occasions to create
crosswalks between various documents, including the ORD, COICs, OMS/MP, GATM ORD,
TM
multiple FAA and other DoD documents. The Core tool also supported the functional analysis
of the Avionics segment. This analysis created the foundation of the lower level requirements
that resulted in the major portion of the derived requirements for UH-60M cockpit (Situational
Awareness Document). The database was also utilized as a bridge from the Performance
Specification to the Crew Station Working Group (CSWG) effort to develop the final detailed
TM
functionality of the cockpit. The Core tool provided a discrete event simulation capability that
was used to model the operational tasks required during a basic mission and evaluate the
impact/benefit of 4 versus 2 MFDs.
2.4.1.6.1 Requirements Management Tool - CoreTM

TM
Core has been utilized as the prime requirements management, specification development,
and functional analysis tool within the UH PMO for the past 6 years. It exceeds the capabilities
TM
of the industry standard, DOORS , which is basically a requirements management/traceability
TM
tool. Core also has a very powerful discrete event simulation capability in which the user can
model very complex systems and execute that model for sequencing and data flow between
TM
subsystems. Core can also provide the user extensive graphical presentations of the
functional model, physical architecture, or user generated tables. Below, Figure 13, is a sample
of the visual interface of the CORE Database Editor depicting some of the relationships and
traceability between the elements.
FIGURE 13. UH-60M CORE SOFTWARE DATABASE
47
2.4.2 Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

The UH-60M PMO intends to use M&S to assess production readiness, identify production risks
and develop risk mitigation plans. M&S will be employed primarily as a planning, evaluation
and monitoring tool. The planning and evaluation functions will involve using the tool to
evaluate proposed changes to a production process with an ultimate goal of ensuring that an
objective throughput is attainable based on a given set of constraints. Proposed changes could
include introduction of new tooling, equipment, reorganization of facilities, inspection
procedures, or reduction in workforce. The monitoring function will involve using the tool to
track progress of aircraft during the build cycle.
The system engineering process was used to develop an M&S strategy for the UH-60M. The
M&S strategy includes a description of the simulation methodology employed as well as model
metrics and model outputs. The Government does not intend to model all Contractor processes.
Instead, the strategy is to first model aircraft final assembly, the pace of which ultimately
determines how fast the product can be delivered to the customer. Based on what are identified
as the bottleneck processes in final assembly, the plan is to work “back up” the production build
stream and model those processes which are shown to be on the critical path. These models will
also help identify those parts whose availability may be critical in trying to maintain a smooth
production flow.
The simulation software selected for this effort is a commercial off the shelf product named
“WITNESS” by Lanner, Inc. WITNESS is a graphical interactive simulation tool with artificial
intelligence features which enable the non-simulation specialist to quickly build models of
complex operations. WITNESS combines the power of moving color graphics with user
interaction to permit a decision maker or planning team to view a complex factory operation or
business process and interactively use ‘what-if’ techniques to investigate, plan, and implement
changes in the operation and investment of improvement projects. The Government has teamed
with Lanner who is now customizing their product to meet the needs of the UH-60M
Modernization Program. Lanner is developing an executive dashboard, a user-interface and
providing support in data collection and model development. The dashboard will serve as a
dynamic status reporting tool that will display key program metrics.
In July of 2004 UH-60M PMO completed development and validated with the Contractor a
model of the WCB build process. UH-60M PMO plans to complete models of UH-60M and
UH-60L final assembly before the end of calendar year 2004.
2.4.2.1 Modeling and Simulation Tools

Both the Government and the Contractor, as part of the CTT, will be required to implement
modeling and simulation tools into the overall Qualification Test Program in an integrated STEP.
Modeling and simulation will be used as an “analysis” verification method. The objective of the
STEP process shall be to utilize models and simulations to streamline actual testing and to utilize
data obtained during testing as feedback to validate the models and simulations in order to
optimize the overall evaluation process. All models and simulations used as part of the
evaluation will be accredited IAW Attachment 5. The VV&A process for the candidate models
48
will be documented in the UH-60 Modernization Simulation Support Plan and adhere to the
guidelines and policies stipulated in DA PAM 5-11 Modeling and Simulation VV&A Process.
V&V was successfully completed 30 days prior to LUT Operational Test Readiness Review
(OTRR) #2. Modeling and simulation tools and test beds to be utilized in this phase of the
program are identified in the paragraphs below.
TABLE 4. BLOCK 1 SIMULATIONS, MODELS AND TESTBEDS MATRIX
The M&S tools identified in the Table 4 represent the M&S tools used to support the design,
test, management, deployment and sustainment of the UH-60M. These M&S tools were used
during preparation for Milestone C and were either developed by the UH-60M Modernization
49
Program to support the specific needs of the UH-60M or developed by other

government/contractor agencies to meet specific analytical requirements. Users of M&S tools
provide the access to the functionality of the tools to meet the requirements of the UH-60M
Modernization Program during the execution of their support the various support requirements.
2.4.2.1.1 Advanced Prototyping and EXperimentation (APEX) and System

Integration Laboratories (SIL).
The PM will host three early user demonstrations (EUD), EUD 1 and 2 are complete. The
purpose is to involve the user, operational aircrews and the test community in the technical
baseline development prior to final configuration at CDR and to examine entrance criteria for the
MS C/LRIP decision. The user and operational aircrews will have the opportunity to provide
feedback on the recommended baselines.
2.4.2.1.2 EUD-1
Support of the Risk Reduction Trade Studies was accomplished in the Research, Development,
and Engineering Command (RDECOM) Advanced Prototyping and Experimenting (APEX)
Laboratory utilizing the re-configurable common cockpit prototype in order to consider the
widest range of cockpit configurations. The data used for evaluation was collected from a
training period, a series of structured mission scenarios and after action interviews. The APEX
facility records all pilot actions as data and correlates them to mission events.
2.4.2.1.3 EUD-2
Support of the PDR, was accomplished through the use of the RDECOM APEX Laboratory.
The baseline UH-60M cockpit was emulated in the facility. All available tactical hardware and
software was used along with simulations. Data recording and evaluation was similar to EUD-1.
2.4.2.1.4 EUD-3
EUD-3 will use the RDECOM SIL using the cockpit design determined by the CDR. Data
recording and evaluation will be similar to EUD-1 and EUD-2 using audio and video recording.
2.4.2.1.5 Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP)

The RDECOM conducted a SLAP program for the UH-60 aircraft. All flight test data and
correlations are complete. Information was input into the NASA Structural Analysis
(NASTRAN) finite element model and used for the structural assessment of the UH-60M.
2.4.2.1.6 Shipboard Compatibility.

UH-60M Naval shipboard certification will be based on similarity to the family of H-60 aircraft
currently certified for shipboard operations. Published JSHIP studies and analysis will be used to
compare and establish major differences between the UH-60M and other H-60 aircraft. Key
areas for comparison will include: Training of Naval personnel for UH-60M deck handling;
Peculiar UH-60M support equipment required for shipboard handling and maintenance; Aircraft
configuration required for shipboard operations and mooring; E3 requirements and qualification;
Aircraft servicing requirements; use and compatibility of ordnance on Naval ships. Major
50
differences will be presented to the Shipboard Aviation Facilities Certification Manager, Naval
Air Systems Command (NAVAIRSYSCOM), and the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft
Division (NAWCAD), Rotary Wing Ship Suitability Branch, for review. UH PMO will use
Electromagnetic/Electronic Environmental Effects (E3)/ Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation
to Ordinance (HERO) testing and similarity of dynamic/physical interface characteristics of
current certified H-60 in support of Naval shipboard certification.
2.4.2.1.7 Government Battlefield Highly Immersive Virtual Environment (BHIVE).

BHIVE will study and assist in the development and analysis of Tactics, Techniques, and
Procedures.
2.4.2.1.8 Modular Unix-based Vulnerability Estimation Suite (MUVES), Stochastic

Analysis of Fragmenting Effects (SAFE) and Stochastic Quantitative Analysis of System
Hierarchies SQuASH) (MUVES-S2).
These simulation tools will conducts vulnerability analysis in support of the ballistic live fire
testing and survivability evaluation.
2.4.2.1.9 Advanced Tactical Combat Model (ATCOM)

This simulation model is used for evaluating mission level survivability.
2.4.2.1.10 Infrared (IR) Susceptibility Evaluation.

The UH-60M baseline design will include a new infrared suppresser system (IRSS) to address
ORD requirements for IR signature. Measurements will be made at various aspect angles and
orientations to adequately quantify the overall aircraft IR signature of a UH-60M. In addition to
the UH-60M, a UH-60L will be measured at the same location and timeframe in order to
adequately compare the two signatures. This will allow the ability to determine, the difference
between the two aircraft signatures, while measured in the same environment. The measured
flight test results and component level laboratory qualification data will be integrated with the
MODTRAN source signature model and the DISAMS missile models to evaluate the UH-60M
aircraft susceptibility improvements.
2.4.2.1.11 Contractor UH-60 Flight Dynamics Models

The dynamic models will include such models as GenHel and FlightLab.
2.4.2.1.12 Chemical Agent Deposition Analysis for Rotorcraft Surfaces (CADARS)

CADARS models the complex interactions and effects that a helicopter’s rotorwash has on
airborne chemical agent challenge levels and predicts the enhanced, and reduced, airframe
exposure levels. Data generated from the CADARS can identify areas of high and low
deposition, determine potential material exposure levels, support decontamination planning
efforts, map external air pressures, and aid in determining onboard chemical filter challenge
levels. Furthermore, the residual hazard to personnel can also be anticipated by incorporating the
deposition locations and concentrations with the estimated decontamination effectiveness of
51
aviation decontamination solutions and procedures. A V&V effort has been completed. ATEC is
responsible for accreditation.
2.4.3 Trade Studies and Assessment

The UH-60M trade studies are based on the UH-60M SOW CAIV and Trade Study paragraphs,
which state that trade studies will be conducted to explore opportunities to increase system
performance while meeting the CAIV objectives for the UH-60M design.
A series of trade studies were conducted during the risk reduction phase of the UH-60M program
and during the Integration and Qualification contract. The objectives of these trades studies
were performance enhancement to meet KPP requirements, enhancement of RAM, and reduction
of costs.
System Engineering is responsible for definition and implementation of the trade study process.
This document provides an overview of the process including trade organizational structure,
trade procedures, and the approval chain that were utilized during Risk Reduction and
Integration/Qualification phase of the UH-60M Modernization Program in order to accomplish
design optimization.
2.4.3.1 Trade Study Identification

Working through an IPT process, trade study candidates are generated in accordance with UH-
60M SOW. The scope of the UH-60M trade studies include the following categories:
• Programmatic initiatives (cost tracking system, process improvements, production line
optimization)
• Commonality initiatives (hardware / software commonality, Commercial Off The Shelf
(COTS) hardware, use of open/modular architecture)
• Performance trades (trade study candidates, trade methodology, alternative selection)
• Government-recommended airworthiness qualification trades (airframe, electrical and
avionics improvements).
Trade studies were generally conducted at the system and segment level. System trades
(Attachment 6) are trades affecting the overall system (System Performance Specification
AVNS-PRF-10002) in terms of operational effectiveness/suitability, and cost which involve
elements from more than one of the segments. Segment trades affect only one segment, such as
airframe, avionics, logistics, etc… System and segment trades may address Detail Items in
determining whether their impacts on system attributes such as weight and cost are within stated
tolerances.
The definition of, and the coordination associated with trade studies depends upon the level of
the trade. UH-60M System Engineering has general responsibility of the trade study process and
system level trades. Segment level trades are the responsibility to the primary and supporting
IPTs. IPT leaders are responsible for scheduling trades within the IPT and coordinating activities
to ensure timely and proper completion of all trades. For example, IPT leaders ensure that all
parameters impacted by a trade alternative are identified and evaluated. The System Engineering
52
IPT assists in coordination of trades to ensure that the trade is conducted according to the trade
process, and the effectiveness evaluation is properly implemented.
2.4.3.2 Trade Study Process.

The UH-60M trade study process is depicted in Figure 14 and encompasses the following six (6)
steps:
• Generate & Document Trade Objective
• Selection of Alternatives
• Identifying Design Impacts
• Checking Against Requirements & Allocations
• Evaluation of Impacts
• Documentation of Results
FIGURE 14. UH-60M TRADE STUDY PROCESS
2.4.3.3 Generate & Document Trade Objective

A clearly defined trade objective is generated and documented for each trade study. The trade
objective serves as a basis for establishing priorities among the trade studies. A clear, concise
objective is critical for understanding the scope of work required for a specific trade and
additionally establishes the closing criteria for each trade study. A Trade objective should
address how a particular trade study potentially affects the overall system based on the trade
metrics.
2.4.3.4 Selection of Alternatives

The primary component of any trade study is a valid set of alternatives. Alternatives for each
trade study are identified to the extent that the overall scope and level of effort required to
53
complete a trade study are defined. Selection and prioritization of trade study candidates requires
Army involvement at all levels and will be finalized through the IPT process. It is important to
limit alternatives to only those necessary to resolve the trade objective and to minimize
confusion in the understanding of the opportunities provided by the alternatives.
2.4.3.5 Checking Against Requirements & Allocations

This step compares each trade alternative against baseline requirements and against the
allocations established to meet those requirements. Baseline requirements defined in the UH-
60M System Performance Specification, AVNS-PRF-10002, and related documentation apply to
each alternative involved in a particular trade. In this step, each IPT must identify and assess
how each trade alternative affects requirements in all areas. Impacts to any requirements or
allocations must be noted and addressed. Each trade study will include a concept / preliminary
design for each alternative. The concept / preliminary design will be developed in sufficient
detail to assess the impacts of selection of the alternatives on performance and program criteria,
and to understand physical integration requirements.
2.4.3.6 Identification of Design Impacts

The most critical aspect of the trade study process is the use of performance measures and
metrics to assess the trade alternatives to ensure that the decision process remains consistent and
traceable. The metric values generated for each alternative are quantified as a relative value with
respect to the baseline configuration and provide the means of rating or scoring the alternatives
to support their evaluation. This step identifies all impacts that must be considered in a
particular trade study. Impacts are divided into the following categories per Table 5 IAW the IQ
SOW:
Parameter Metric
Risk
Schedule Qualitative Index (1=Low, 3=Medium, 5=High)
based upon months impact to milestone schedule.
Technical Qualitative Index (1=Low, 3=Medium, 5=High)
based on technology maturity , level of integration
required, and impact to program.
Cost Qualitative Index (1=Low, 3=Medium, 5=High)
based on complexity and anticipated cost.
System Performance
Mission Performance
Flight Performance
Internal Lift Ton nm per mission hr vs. weight empty
External Lift Ton nm per mission hr vs. weight empty
54
UH-60M Trade Study Parameters and Metrics, continued

Parameter Metric
Risk
Situational Awareness Qualitative Index (information availability as it
enhances operator performance)
Interoperability Checklist of communication functions and
Qualitative Index
Crew Human Factors (HFE) Qualitative Index (Operator & Maintainer
Workload)
Survivability
Ballistic Vulnerable Area
Infrared Watts/Steradian
Crashworthiness ADS-11 Ranking, Vertical Sink Speed
Supportability
Reliability Mean Time Between Essential Maintenance
Action (MTBEMA)
Maintainability Unscheduled Maintenance Man Hours/Flight Hour
(UMMH/FH)
Scheduled Maintenance Man Hours/Flight Hour
SMMH/FH
Mean Time To Repair (MTTR)
MANPRINT
System Safety Qualitative Index (Operator & Maintainer
Safety/Survivability, Health Hazard Assessment)
Maintainer Skill Level, Maintainer Human Qualitative Index (Training Task difficulty, task
Factors, Training Impact importance & task frequency)
Transportability
C-5 Load Prep Time, Load/Tiedown, Unload and
Prep for 1st Flight Time (minutes)
Life Cycle Cost

Nonrecurring Cost (Delta) FY 2000 Dollars Including Training, Technical
Publications, Support Equipment & Initial Spares
Development
Averaged Design to Unit Production Cost FY 2000 Dollars Average for 1,206 Upgrade
(Delta) aircraft: 360 Non-hardpoint UH-60A to UH-60M,
441 Hardpoint UH-60A to UH-60M and 405 UH-
60L to UH-60M
Design to Operating & Support Cost $/FH FY 2000 Dollars Includes total Depot
(Delta) repairables and consumables, AVUM (Scheduled
& Unscheduled) and AVIM labor and POL
TABLE 5. UH-60M TRADE STUDY PARAMETERS AND METRICS
55
2.4.3.7 Evaluation of Impacts

The total impact of each trade alternative on system effectiveness relative to the baseline
configuration is quantified using a weighted matrix methodology. Subject matter expert analysis
of the alternatives impacts along with the supporting rationale, are used as indicators of the most
cost-effective (operationally suitable) solution. Figure 15 presents a tree-branched listing of the
elements contributing to system value and their proposed relative weightings. The proposed
weightings for the UH-60M Risk Reduction trade study evaluation process have been established
through a combination of feedback from the Army BLACK HAWK Modernization team and
experience on past Army programs
FIGURE 15. UH-60M TRADE STUDY EVALUATION WEIGHTINGS
Utility curves are developed to facilitate a sensitivity analysis for the required performance
measures. Utility curves are developed via various techniques, such as modeling and simulation,
to provide an indication of the effect that a change in a performance measure has on system
effectiveness. A few examples of utility curve development for the UH-60M Risk Reduction
effort are described below:
• Mission capability is generally evaluated with modeling and simulation using system
dynamics.
• Reliability and maintainability utility curves are derived from using the standard system
availability equation.
• Subjective categories such as safety and risk will use a qualitative assessment against
specified criteria for that specialty area.
2.4.3.8 System Optimization

A system optimization is performed periodically during the development phase of the system.
An optimization analysis to determine the most cost-effective solution without trading between
key performance parameters takes results of individual trade studies and combines them to
56
determine the best mix of trade alternatives, Figure 16. This optimization is subject to specific
program constraints and supports the CAIV objectives for the UH-60M.
The system optimization analysis utilizes a mixed integer linear programming technique to
identify the most cost-effective system configuration where multiple KPPs interact. The SE IPT
is responsible for organizing and conducting the system optimization of the trade studies.
FIGURE 16. SYSTEM DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
2.4.3.9 Results
Utilization of the trade study process detailed herein has resulted in several modifications and
changes to the UH-60M system. During the RR phase, a major trade study effort resulted in
multiple hardware actions being implemented through contract modification or implementation
into the baseline configuration. Attachment 6 contains lists of trades performed during RR and
IQ as well as status of implementation.
2.5 Technical Management and Control

Engineering Efforts of the contractor and subcontractor are managed through regularly
scheduled IPT meetings, formal design reviews, and formal configuration control.
UH-60M requirements are documented and tracked at the system and segment level. Overall
technical requirements are contained in the UH-60M Performance Specification, AVNS-PRF-
10002. Changes to the specification are made via a form SCN process where contractor and
57
government members of the integrated product team have the opportunity to comment on
proposed changes. After a period of comment and revision, the SCNs are boarded at a
Configuration Control Board consisting of Government personnel from the PM and supporting
agencies such as the acquisition center, the user, logistics, and the AMRDEC. After a years
time, a revision is made to the Performance Specification to incorporate all SCNs approved since
the last revision was released.
UH-60M performance specification requirements are further decomposed into the allocated
baseline by means of segment specifications which define in further detail the performance
expected of elements of the UH-60M. Segment specifications have been baselined for Ground
Support Equipment, Dynamic Components, Airframe, and Avionics.
2.5.1 Interface Management

The Contractor will identify all UH-60M system level hardware, software, and firmware
interface requirements and prepare and deliver an interface control document (ICD) list. The
Contractor is responsible for defining and controlling all interface requirements and for ensuring
compatibility and interoperability for UH-60M hardware and software components IAW
performance requirements.
Interface management consists of identifying the interfaces, establishing working groups to

manage interfaces, and the group's development of interface control documentation. Interface
management identifies, develops, and maintains the external and internal interfaces necessary for
system operation. It supports CM by ensuring that configuration decisions are made with full
details about the change that is under consideration available to the decision body.
Types of interfaces include functional, physical, electrical, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic,

optical, software, or other characteristics required at a boundary that is common to two or more
systems, products, or components.
In the UH-60M Modernization Program where the system already exists, all external interfaces
will have to be mapped, changes identified, changes defined, and characteristics listed. The
Contractor will address interface management and integration in the SE portion of the IMP.
Interface control is the coordinated activity necessary to confirm that equipment and software
produced by one party is compatible with that of another party. A technical interface exists
when one of the following occur:
• A subsystem developed item is required to mate with another subsystem’s developed item, or the
converse of this.
• One subsystem is constrained by actions, yet to be completed by another team member at some
specified point in time.
• More than one subsystem/segment must work together to achieve requirement compliance.
58
2.5.1.1 Interface Identification

Interfaces between segments (airframe, dynamics….) are identified in the UH-60M requirement
database. These interfaces include all system or subsystem level hardware/software interfaces
and interactions unique to UH-60M requirements. Subsystem-to-subsystem interfaces are
documented within the requirement database. Each functional organization is responsible for
jointly developing and negotiating agreements for the interface requirements for which they are assigned.
Changes to interface requirements can be initiated by any party involved in the interface. Such
changes require approval by both parties and the system engineer.
2.5.1.2 GFE Interface Control

The configuration of GFE used on the UH-60M aircraft is verified with the GFE list agreed upon
with the U.S. Army. If configuration changes are required, the proposed changes will also
require approval by Sikorsky and the Army.
2.5.1.3 Subcontractor Interface

Subcontractors are contractually bound by purchase order agreements to the same interface
control requirements as imposed in the prime contract. SOWs, specifications and drawings
define requirements for system hardware and computer programs. To minimize use of unique
interface designs, improve interoperability, maximize the use of commercial components, and
improve the capacity for future upgrades, an open systems approach is required. The open
systems approach involves selecting industry-recognized specifications and standards to define
system internal and external interfaces. An open system is characterized by increased use of
functional partitioning and modular design to enhance flexibility; use of well-defined, widely
used, non-proprietary interfaces and protocols based on standards recognized and accepted by
industry, standards institutions, and professional societies; and explicit provision for
expansion/upgrade. JTA-A Version 7.0 provides the DoD mandatory guidance about the open
systems approach.
2.5.2 Configuration Management

CM of the system will be IAW the government approved CM plan. CM process flow is depicted
in Figure 17. The CM Plan establishes a CCB which will govern and control the UH-60M
technical baseline throughout its life cycle. The full spectrum of UH-60M hardware, software,
and firmware documents including system specifications, software documentation, and
engineering drawings, will be placed under configuration control after each document has been
verified and validated through the test, evaluation, and audit process. The current list of all UH-
60M Configuration Items (CIs), including hardware CIs (HWCIs) and computer software CIs
(CSCIs), are categorized as legacy, new, or revised. Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) is
separately identified for interface control where required. The Government prepared and is
maintaining custody of the top system specification with CCB control of Specification Change
Notices (SCN) prepared and submitted by the prime contractor. The Contractor is preparing
Government format performance specifications for the IPT approved list of Allocated Baseline
UH-60M unique CIs. Detail specifications to satisfy flow-down of requirements from the
Allocated Baseline are prepared in the Contractor's format and combined with Product Drawings
and Associated Lists to comprise the Product Baseline. Functional Configuration Audits (FCA)
and Physical Configuration Audits (PCA), of the UH-60M and HH-60M (MEDEVAC) unique
59
hardware, software, and interfaces will be performed before finalizing the product baselines. The
Technical Data Package (TDP) is procured and maintained under the direction of MIL-DTL-
31000C.
60
The CM plan outlines the following CM infrastructure:

Establishment of a Configuration Control Board
• Reporting structures within the Army/Contractor IPT structure for identifying change
request flows, interfaces and status accounting.
• Responsibility and authority of CM for all participating groups and organizations
including their role in configuration control boards and the integration of CM functions
with other program activities such as technical reviews.
The CM Plan outlines methods for establishing the following baselines:
• Provide general CM milestones

• Release and submittal of configuration controlled documentation in relation to program
events;
• Criteria for CIs
• Criteria for configuration identification
• Establishment of Functional, Allocated and Product Baselines
• Drawing and Specification tree development
• Required audits and/or reviews (e.g. CDR)
In addition, the CM Plan outlines the following configuration change control actions:
Establishment of configuration control boards

• Active Army/Contractor IPT participation
• Authorities
• Classification of changes
• System requirements flow-down
• Determination of functional, physical, schedule, and cost impacts of proposed changes
(ECPs) and Requests For Deviations (RFDs);
• Supplier/vendor CM control
• Verification and traceability of changes
• Status accounting
Subcontractors are monitored to ensure compliance with their individual UH-60M CM Plans.
This will aid in the control and protection of program costs and schedules; compatibility of
supplier provided equipment for the technical system; updating of all data dependant on supplier
provided equipment; information on software version and equipment; and protection against
unauthorized changes.
61
• Timing
• Schedule
• Resources
• Inadequate
planning and
preparation
• CM Plan
Configuration • Definition and identification of CI’s
• Mission Need • ABL & PBL established
• Program Initiation • Change control
• System Eng Management • Supplier/Subcontractor change control
Requirements,
•
Functional Analysis Process •
CCB Activity
Disposition of proposed changes
• Logistic & Maintenance
• Status accounting
Plans
• Change audit & verification activity
• Performance
Measurements • Class I baseline change management
• CM process performance measured
• Communication
• Management
Support
• Effective working
IPT & Army IPT Mechanisms/
relationships Facilitators
• Facilities
• Resources
• Training
• Guidance
handbooks, plans
procedures and
standards
FIGURE 17. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.5.2.1 Configuration Changes

Configuration control is applied to established baselines, configuration items, software and all
engineering drawings prior to release. The configuration control system provides for the local
DCMA management to screen contractor classification (Class I, Class II) and process changes to
provide fully coordinated change packages. Class I and Class II engineering changes are defined
using the definitions provided under MIL-HDBK-61 although the contractor continues to use
MIL-STD-973 that was cancelled for Government use.
2.5.2.2 Change Coordination

All proposed changes to an established baseline will require classification. All changes will be
classified as either a Class I (Major change) or Class II (Minor change). The Government and
Contractor share the responsibility for verifying that the proper change classification has been
applied to a proposed change affecting the Product Baseline. The Sikorsky Program Office will
submit Class I changes to the Government as formal ECPs. Class II minor engineering changes
shall be approved by the prime contractor and incorporated by engineering release to the
Product Baseline with (DCMA) representative concurrence.
62
2.5.2.3 Specification Maintenance

Program specifications establish the system requirements and the means for verification of
acceptable functional performance. The specification updates are performed and controlled IAW
the approved Configuration Management Plan. Approved requirement changes are incorporated
into the DOORS database per the CM Plan. Changes to the System Specification are
documented via Specification Change Notices (SCN). The co-chairs for generating the SCNs are
the Government’s UH-60M System Engineer and Sikorsky’s UH-60M System Engineer. Peer
reviews of the SCNs are performed by the contractor’s functional groups and the Government’s
subject matter experts. Approvals from each organization are provided to the Configuration
Control Board (CCB). The CCB is chaired by UH PO Configuration Management and includes
business, test, logistics, and engineering members from the UH-60M IPTs, AED, Production
Engineering, RAM, AMCOM Safety, TRADOC System Manager (TSM), and Technical Data
Management.
2.5.2.4 Requirement Traceability

System requirement traceability is provided from the UH-60M ORD to the Functional Baseline
top System Performance Specification. Requirement traceability for the UH-60M Functional
Baseline is accomplished via two independent database systems. The primary system is the one
developed by Sikorsky utilizing the SE software tool, DOORSTM. Within that database Sikorsky
is able to trace performance requirements in section 3 to each of the Verification Requirements
in section 4. From there traceability is further carried down to the appropriate Allocated Baseline
Segment Specification and/or the SRS. Segment Specifications and the SRS requirements are
then traced to the appropriate lower level Product Baseline Detail Specifications and/or Software
Design Descriptions (SDD). The Army maintains a parallel traceability from the System
Requirements (section 3) to the Verification Requirements (section 4) of the Performance
Specification within a software SE tool (CORETM ).
2.5.2.5 Requirement Verification/Substantiation

The Army and Sikorsky agreed to the method of verification (test, analysis, demonstration,
legacy, similarity, etc) for each requirement within section 3 of the Performance Specification.
Some clarification was provided within each of the corresponding section 4 Verification
Requirements. Aviation Engineering Directorate was tasked via the UH-60M PM to establish a
process to substantiate the verification of each of the requirements within the Performance
Specification. Sikorsky currently initiates a MFR that defines the method/procedure used to
verify the requirement and includes the technical stakeholder concurrence. This MFR is then
distributed to the AED functional for review and concurrence. Once approved, the element is
considered substantiated and closed out.
2.5.2.6 Data Management

Data management personnel document and maintain the database of UH-60M system life cycle
decisions, methods, feedback, metrics, and configuration control. It directly supports the
configuration status accounting process. Data management also governs and controls the
selection, generation, preparation, acquisition, and use of data imposed on the Contractor.
63
Data is recorded information including all administrative, management, financial, scientific,

engineering, and logistics information and documentation required for delivery from the
contractor. There are three types of contractually required data, technical, non-technical, and
one-time use (technical and non-technical) data. Data is acquired and used for two basic
purposes, information feedback and decision-making support. Data comes in the form of
documents, drawings, 3-D CAD data, images (still and moving) in grayscale or color, formatted
data, with signatures, and markups of all the above.
Public Law 104-13, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, established the requirement to
replace paper data with digitized data, and to handle, transmit, and store that data by means of an
integrated digital environment. MIL-STD-1840C, DoD Interface Standard, Automated
Interchange of Technical Information, establishes the structure and formats for transfer of digital
information between organizations and systems exchanging digital forms of technical
information throughout the system life cycle.
UH-60M requires on-line access to, or delivery of, the Contractor's programmatic and technical
data in digital form (unless analysis shows that life cycle time or life cycle costs would be
increased) via Contractor Integrated Technical Information Service (CITIS). The UH PMO has
developed a Government concept of operations that spells out Contractor requirements for
functionality (but not the implementation method), user systems interfaces, including the Joint
Engineering Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS), data exchange
standards, personnel computer software compatibility, Government network infrastructure,
CITIS accessibility, User training and support, data distribution statement codes, configuration
management, archive document delivery, and video teleconferencing capabilities.
2.5.3 Technical Objectives
2.5.3.1 Technical Performance Measures (TPMs)

TPMs provide a measure of technical progress as the system matures through the development
process. The System Engineering IPT monitors the TPMs through bi-weekly reports from the
Contractor. The current status of TPMs is shown in Table 6 and Table 7. These TPMs provide a
representative set of technical parameters that can be measured periodically to report progress
toward achieving system requirements. In addition, the UH-60M ORD requires that the system
meet two Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The two KPPs required by the ORD are:
• Transport external load of 4,500 pounds @ 4,000 ft PA, 95 deg F ambient temperature at a
combat radius of 135 km.
• Interoperability requirement to meet 100% of critical top level information exchange
requirements.
All requirements other than KPPs and Design to Unit Production Cost (DTUPC) were subject to
trade studies, allowing the contractor maximum flexibility in developing a CAIV-based solution
in order to satisfy the mission need.
The Prime Contractor monitors the subcontractor’s TPMs within the scope of their subcontracts.
Other IPTs track the significant parameters which pertain to their area of responsibility. The
64
Test IPT tracks the occurrence and resolution of system level test incident reports (TIRs). The
MEP IPT tracks the resolution of software problem change reports (PCRs).
UH-60M IQ TPM’s as of: 1 January 2007
Attribute Status Spec Margi Trend** Comment
Min. Rate of Climb, OEI (ft./min.) [>=] 16 10 60.0 ⇔
External Lift Payload (lb.) [>=] KP 5396 450 19.9 ⇑ Projected weight empty decreased
0.8 lb.
Projected weight empty decreased
Self-Deployment (nm.) 1119 105 5.9 ⇑ 0.8 lb.
Sustained Cruise Airspeed OEI (KTAS) [>=] 10 10 6.6 ⇔
Primary Mission Combat Radius (km.) 23 22 4.7 ⇔
CSquared Endurance (hr.) [>=] 4. 4. 4.6 ⇔
Mid. Mission IGE TOGW, OEI (lb.) [>=] 1501 14790 1.5 ⇓ Projected weight empty decreased
0.8 lb.
Sustained Cruise Airspeed (KTAS) [>=] 14 14 0.6 ⇔
MTBMAF 1 1 2.7 ⇔
MTBMA 5 4 37.5 ⇔
MTBEMA 4. 3. 8.1 ⇔
MMH/FH 1. 2. 90.9 ⇔
* Status values are rounded. ** Trend is based on prior months report.
KEY: ⇓ Degrading Trend ⇑ Improving Trend Within Spec Not Within Spec but Mitigation Plan in place Not Within
Spec
TABLE 6. BI-WEEKLY TPM STATUS SAMPLE
65
UH-60M IQ TPM’s as of: 1 January, 2007
as of Thursday, February, 8, 2007
Current SW LOC Final SW LOC Faults Memory Load ThroughPut Notes Approach to meet As of:
50% requirement
SLOC % ReUse SLOC % ReUse Total Open Closed Actual At Completion Actual At Completion
FMS 196,623 12% 196,623 12% 430 0 430 24% 24% 50% 50% (1), (6), (8) N/A Dec 5, 2006
(N)
M FDS 123,666 70% 124,848 70% 459 25 434 45% 45% 100% 100% (N) Dec 15, 2006
F TSA 77,923 80% 77,923 80% 247 4 243 12% 12% 60% 75% (N) Dec 15, 2006
D DMS 23,275 77% 23,275 77% 53 8 45 61% 61% 94% 94% (N) Dec 15, 2006
FCC 188,471 0% 188,471 0% 247 10 237 6% 6% 58% 58% (2) Dec 6, 2006
DCU 12,886 60% 12,886 60% 86 0 86 12% 12% 27% 27% (N) Dec 6, 2006
ADC 21,400 90% 21,500 90% 79 16 63 48% 52% 25% 25% (7), (N) Dec 15, 2006
DTS 56,300 76% 56,300 76% 79 9 70 43% 43% 98% 50% (3), (N) Dec 15, 2006
E Net Processor 18,698 60% 18,700 60% 52 0 52 N/A N/A Not Not (4), (N) Dec 15, 2006
S Applicable Applicable
H Mgmt Proc Loader 9,029 90% 9,029 90% 18 0 18 N/A N/A 10% 10% (N) Dec 15, 2006
Mgmt Processor 16,449 30% 16,449 30% 134 0 134 13% 13% 20% 20% (N) Dec 15, 2006
ICS 19,393 79% 19,776 98% 2 0 2 100% 100% 14% 14% (5), (N) Memory reserve Dec 15, 2006
will be met as
part of the Phase
3 ICS
configuration
Total UH-60M 764,113 39% 765,780 40% 1886 72 1814
Notes: Bold items changed this month

(1) Memory usage is the combined loading on Flash and RAM memory.
(2) FCC & ADC faults currently reflect total number of PCRs rather than critical faults.
(3) Current DTS throughput is actual measurement, 2 clients running @ 4MBps (temporary condition, peak load).
Throughput at completion is average loading during normal operation.
(4) ESH Network processor has 16 CPs, 80 BPs, 1 XP, 1 FP, 1 BMT, 1 TLU, 1 QMU and throughput is not meaningful.
Suggest that bandwidth or "spare" are more meaningful measures.
(5) ICS version 2.24.
(6) SLOCs based on Preproduction Build 23.
7) CI is COTS and not unique UH-60M item
8) Reuse is considered unmodified files as defined in the SOW.
(N) No change this month.
N/A - Not Available
TABLE 7. SOFTWARE METRICS STATUS SAMPLE
2.5.3.2 Critical Technical Parameters

The UH-60M CTPs are shown in Attachment 4. The UH-60M program will provide quantifiable
evidence that these developmental and integration objectives have been satisfied.
2.5.3.3 Measures of Effectiveness

The UH-60M MOEs are shown in Attachment 5. The UH-60M program will utilize these
parameters to evaluate the successful integration objectives.
2.5.4 Requirements Traceability

UH-60 ORD requirements were flowed down to and traced back from the UH-60M Performance
Specification, AVNS-PRF-10002, via a crosswalk. A face-to-face review with the user verified
that the Performance Specification did, in fact, properly capture the requirements of the ORD.
The requirements were then captured within the Contractor’s requirements traceability
tool/database. Traceability was continued down to the verification requirements and to the
Contractor developed Segment Specifications (AVNS-PRF-10093-96). The Avionics Segment
Specification was additionally decomposed and traced to a SSDD. The three Segment
Specifications and the Avionics SSDD were traced to the next level, the product specifications or
66
CIs. This total traceability is resident within the Contractor DOORS@ database and can be
accessed by the Government upon request.
2.5.5 Overview of Government and Contractor Data Rights

Under the UH-60M Integration and Qualification Contract, the Government has contracted for
unlimited software rights on all software developed under the contract. Under the UH-60M I/Q
contract, subcontractor management was left to the Prime Contractor. Requirements for the
subcontractor’s deliverables were flowed down from Sikorsky’s contract with the Government.
This strategy has resulted in some undesireable surprises in data rights and system integration
when the subcontractor’s final product is delivered. For this reason, the Government will
become more involved in Sikorsky’s subcontractor management to ensure the Army’s
requirements for data rights are being met.
2.5.6 Technical Reviews

The UH-60M Modernization Program has been and remains an event-driven program consisting
of major program events and developmental events. The program events correspond to program
and technical reviews, which are mandated by the Army through the contract and the IMP.
Program events mark the conclusion/initiation of intervals or phases of a major program activity
(e.g., PDR, CDR) and serve as decision-oriented measures associated with continued system
development. Technical Reviews below the system level were held by Sikorsky with the Army
invited to attend and participate. Sikorsky and their subcontractors coordinated the subsystem
and configuration item technical reviews shown in Attachment 8. The UH PMO and AED
participated in each of the twenty plus major subcontractor technical reviews.
The Technical Reviews in this section are contractually required and are held to allow the Army
to formally review the UH-60M technical status, approve subsequent technical actions, and
validate/accept data and equipment. Technical reviews are done after each level of development
to check design maturity, review technical risk, and determine whether to proceed to the next
level of development. All of the reviews are conducted by Sikorsky with the final decision
authority for the identification and resolution of technical issue residing with the UH-60M
Product Manager. Updates to, or the resolution of, outstanding issues resulting from the reviews
are briefed on a continuous basis to the UH-60M Product Manager and the Sikorsky Program
Manager.
Ongoing lower tier technical reviews take place throughout the program in addition to the major
reviews such as SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR, etc. These lower tier reviews are held by Sikorsky, their
subcontractors, and the Government to review technical subjects such as design progress
verification status and other issues as they arise. Reviews may either be scheduled or
unscheduled depending on the nature of the subject. The Government is notified of these
ongoing reviews and participates as necessary inviting the appropriate subject matter experts.
Weekly IPT meetings and Program Management Reviews (PMR) are held regularly between the
Government and Sikorsky. These serve to keep both parties informed on the technical progress
of the subsystems and any attendant technical issues.
Formal technical reviews are preceded by a series of technical interchange meetings where
issues, problems and concerns are addressed. The formal technical review will not be for
67
problem solving, but to verify problem solving has been done. Technical reviews reduce
program risk and ease the transition to production by:
• Assessing the maturity of the design/development effort

• Bringing additional knowledge to the SE process and augmenting the basic program
design and analytical activity
• Clarifying design requirements
• Challenging the design and related processes
• Checking proposed design configuration against technical requirements and system
requirements
• Evaluating the system configuration at different design stages
• Providing a forum for communication, coordination, and integration across all disciplines
and IPTs
• Establishing a common configuration baseline from which to proceed to the next level of
design
• Recording design decision rationale in the design database.
Under the terms of the UH-60M Integration and Qualification contract, Sikorsky is given the
responsibility to conduct system level reviews/meetings which are attended by subcontractors
and affected Government agencies to include as a minimum the UH PMO, ATEC, AED, TSM
Lift, and AMCOM Safety. Sikorsky is tasked with identifying and inviting non-Governmental
attendees based on the agenda. With concurrence of the UH PMO Chief Systems Engineer or
Technical Management Division Chief, the UH-60M PM identifies the subject matter experts
from the affected Government agencies based on the agenda, recommendations from the
organizations, and budgetary/space constraints. The contractor program manager and the
Government Project Manager serve as design review co-chairs. These reviews address the
following as a minimum:
• IPT progress
• program status
• CAIV
• trade studies
• cost and schedule goals
• technical performance
• TPMs
• software progress
• risk management
• configuration management
• process validation/producibility
• corrosion prevention
• path ahead to meeting objective requirements
• entrance/exit criteria for each system level review
• recording design decision rationale in the design database
68
2.5.6.1 System Requirements Review (SRR)

The SRR was a formal review of the conceptual design and methodology of the UH-60M/UH-
60M MEDEVAC system to establish the system capability that satisfied the performance
requirements of AVNS-PRF-10002. The review was held in September of 2001 via Video
Teleconference between the Prime Contractor, the UH PO and related offices, and other
Government organizations. The SRR covered all system elements at Sikorsky’s facility
following IPT recommendation and PMWG agreement that the SRR entrance criteria had been
satisfied.
2.5.6.1.1 SRR Entrance Criteria

a) Government approval of all CDRLs submitted under Risk Reduction phase
b) Requirements flow-down methodology
c) Submittal of updated Trade Study Recommendations.
d) Submittal of updated Configuration Item (CI) List
e) Results from EUD, conducted during Risk Reduction phase, addressed
f) Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)/Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) results
g) Identification of Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) requirements
h) Identification of proposed new, revised or deleted Flight Safety Parts
i) Submittal of an updated Software Requirements Specification if changed from submission
approved under Risk Reduction effort
j) Submittal of an updated Multiplex Interface Control Document if changed from submission
approved under Risk Reduction effort
k) Submittal of an updated Interface Requirements Specification (IRS)
l) Submittal of an updated JTA-Army Version 6.0 Compliance Matrix
m) Any additional criteria agreed to at the kick-off meeting.
2.5.6.1.2 SRR Exit Criteria

Minimum exit criteria included the establishment of the functional baseline and the path ahead
for resolution of action items, documentation of all Government comments to obtain
Government approval of submitted deliverables, Government concurrence that the SRR exit
criteria had been satisfied, and any additional criteria agreed to at the kick-off meeting.
2.5.6.2 Air Vehicle Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

An Air Vehicle PDR was conducted for the Air Vehicle in accordance with the approved
Program Master schedule in December 2001. The agenda for the Air Vehicle PDR was
submitted in advance to the UH-60 Modernization Program Management Office. The agenda
will address all of the Air Vehicle PDR entrance criteria defined below. The Air Vehicle PDR
was the formal technical review of the basic air vehicle design approach for the UH-60M aircraft
configuration item or aggregate of configuration items. The purpose was to (1) evaluate the
progress, technical adequacy, and risk resolution (technical, cost and schedule) of performance
and engineering specialty requirements from the development specification; and (2) establish the
existence and compatibility of the physical and functional interfaces.
69
2.5.6.2.1 Entrance Criteria for Air Vehicle PDR

a) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, proposed allocated
baseline to the CI level
b) Initial Submittal of Structural Design Criteria Report IAW CDRL D002
c) Initial Submittal of Fatigue Methodology Report IAW CDRL D002
d) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, Requirements
allocation traceability and verification methods to the CI level
e) FMEA/FMECA with identification of Category I and Category II failure modes and proposed
elimination or mitigation
f) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, Submittal of
Performance Specifications to the CI level IAW CDRL E007.
g) Allocation of unit production costs to meet the requirements of paragraph 1.0 of the
Performance Specification to the CI level
h) Submittal of the Interface Control Drawings (ICDs) Documentation List IAW CDRL E009.
i) Submittal of updated Trade Study Recommendations for long lead items IAW CDRL B002
j) Identification of proposed new, revised or deleted Flight Safety Parts
2.5.6.2.2 Exit Criteria for Air Vehicle PDR

Minimum exit criteria shall include:
a) Establishment of the allocated baseline to the CI level for Airframe, Avionics (hardware only),
GSE, & Dynamics segments, and path ahead for resolution of action items
b) Documentation of all Government comments that must be addressed to obtain Government
approval of submitted CDRLS above
c) Further requirement allocation and traceability as agreed by the Test Management (TM) IPT
d) Government concurrence that the PDR exit criteria have been satisfied
e) Agreement on applicable detailed specifications for submittal at Air Vehicle CDR.
f) Agreement on applicable ICD’s to be submitted at Air Vehicle CDR.
2.5.6.3 System Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

A System PDR was conducted in accordance with the approved Program Master schedule in
November 2002. Agenda for the System PDR was submitted in advance to the UH-60
Modernization Program Management Office. For CSCIs, this review focused on (1) evaluation
of the progress, consistency, and technical adequacy of selected top level design and test
approaches; and (2) compatibility between software requirements and preliminary design. The
System PDR is normally accomplished for the purpose of establishing integrity of software at the
Computer Software Component (CSC) level. Additional guidance for conducting the PDR for
CSCI’s is contained in Sikorsky Software Development Plan.
2.5.6.3.1 System PDR Entrance Criteria.

a) For computer software related items, proposed allocated baseline
b) For computer software related items, requirements allocation traceability and verification
methods to the CI level
c) Updated FMEA/FMECA with identification of Category I and Category II failure modes and
proposed elimination or mitigation.
d) For computer software related items, submittal of Performance Specifications
70
e) Allocation of unit production costs to meet the requirements of paragraph 1.0 to the CI level
f) For computer software –related items, Submittal of the Interface Control Drawings (ICDs)
Documentation List
g) Review of all SRR action items and risk mitigation efforts
h) Updated TMDE requirement
i) Submittal of an initial Software FMECA
j) Submittal of updated Interface Requirements Specifications (IRSs)
k) Submittal of updated Software Requirements specifications (SRSs)
l) Submittal of preliminary top level Software Design Descriptions (SDDs) and Software Test
Plans (STPs)
m) Submittal of an updated JTA-Army compliance matrix that is ready for submittal to the Army
Digitization Office (ADO)
n) Updated software performance budgets (timing, sizing, and throughput)
o) Submittal of updated Depot Partnership Study Technical Report
p) Any additional criteria agreed to at SRR
2.5.6.3.2 System PDR Exit Criteria.

Minimum exit criteria includes:
a).establishment of the allocated baseline and the path ahead for resolution of action items
b) documentation of all Government comments that must be addressed to obtain Government
approval of submitted deliverables
c) list of components below the CI level requiring further requirement allocation and traceability
as agreed upon by the TM IPT
d) Government concurrence that the PDR exit criteria have been satisfied
and any additional criteria agreed to at the SRR.
2.5.6.4 Air Vehicle CDR

An Air Vehicle Critical Design Review (CDR) for the UH-60M was conducted in accordance
with the approved Program Master schedule in June 2002. An agenda for the AV CDR was
submitted in advance to the UH-60 Modernization Program Management Office. Updated
versions of all specifications presented at the Air Vehicle PDR, all Prime Item Development
Specifications (PID’s) and CID’s and required engineering drawings and engineering
documentation are presented for review. The Air Vehicle CDR was conducted to confirm that
the detail design solutions, as reflected in the requirement documents and engineering drawings
etc., satisfy established requirements. The purpose of this review was to (1) determine that the
detail design of the UH-60M configuration satisfies performance and engineering specialty
requirements, (2) establish detail design compatibility among configuration items, (3) assess
configuration item risk areas (technical, cost and schedule), (4) assess results of producibility
analyses conducted in system hardware, (5) review the preliminary hardware product
specifications, and (6) confirm that the System Level design satisfies the performance
requirements and life cycle approach.
71
2.5.6.4.1 Air Vehicle CDR Entrance Criteria

a) Initial Submittal of External Loads Analysis Report
b) Initial Submittal of Stress Analysis Reports, Initial Submittal of Serialized Item Report
c) Proposed hardware product baseline
d) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, Requirements
allocation traceability and verification methods for the components below the CI level as agreed
at PDR
e) FMEA/FMECA with identification and prioritization of Category I and II failure modes and
proposed verification method for elimination or mitigation
f) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, Submittal of 90% of
Detailed Specifications to the component level agreed upon at AV PDR
g) Submittal of updated Trade Study Recommendations for other than long lead items
h) For Airframe, Avionics (hardware only), GSE, & Dynamics segments, Updated Verification
methods of applicable Section 4 of AVNS-PRF-10002 and the AQSOW
i) Submittal of all applicable ICDs agreed upon at the AV PDR and 90% (or greater) of Product
Drawings and Associated Lists
j) At CDR - Review of all PDR action items and risk mitigation efforts
k) Identification of proposed new, revised or deleted Flight Safety Parts Air Vehicle CDR
2.5.6.4.2 Air Vehicle CDR Exit Criteria

a) A proposed UH-60M configuration that reflects the product baseline incorporating the results
of all approved trade studies will be presented at the Air Vehicle CDR.
b) Documentation of all Government comments that must be addressed to obtain Government
approval of submitted CDRLs
c) Government concurrence that the CDR exit criteria have been satisfied
d) Any additional criteria agreed upon at PDR
2.5.6.5 System Critical Design Review (CDR)

A System CDR for the UH-60M was conducted in accordance with the approved Program
Master schedule in June 2003. Agenda for the System CDR was submitted in advance to the UH-
60 Modernization Program Management Office. Updated versions of all specifications presented
at the System PDR, all Prime Item Development Specifications (PID’s) and Critical Item
Development Specifications (CID’s) and engineering documentation were presented for review.
Both CSCI’s and HWCI’s were presented at the review meeting. Additional guidance for
conducting a System CDR for CSCI’s is contained in the Sikorsky Software Development Plan.
For CSCI’s this review focused on determination of the acceptability of the detailed design,
performance and test characteristics of the design solution, and adequacy of operation and
support documents. The System CDR for the CSCI’s is a formal technical review of each CSCI
detail design, including database and interfaces. The software CDR was for the purpose of
establishing the integrity of computer software design at the Computer Software Unit (CSU)
level prior to coding and testing.
72
2.5.6.5.1 System CDR Entrance Criteria

The following entrance criteria, as a minimum, shall be completed prior to and addressed at the
System CDR:
a) Proposed software product baseline structure (software design and interface design complete
and ready to release to code).
b) For computer software-related items, requirements allocation traceability and verification
methods for the list of components below the CI level as agreed upon at PDR
c) FMEA/FMECA with identification and prioritization of Category I and Category II failure
modes and proposed verification method for elimination or mitigation
d) For computer software-related items, Submittal of Detailed Specifications to the component
level agreed upon at PDR
e) Results from 1st EUD conducted during the I/Q phase addressed.
f) Allocation of unit production costs to meet the requirements of paragraph 1.0 to the
component level agreed upon at PDR
g) Updated verification methods for Section 4 of AVNS-PRF-10002 and the AQSOW
i) Updated TMDE requirements
j) Review of all System PDR action items and risk mitigation efforts
k) Identification of proposed new, revised or deleted Flight Safety Parts
l) Presentation of algorithm descriptions to include Built-In Test (BIT)
m) Submittal of an initial Software Transition Plan
n) Submittal of updated SDDs, STPs, and preliminary Software Test Descriptions (STDs)
o) Submittal of updated SRSs, if changed from previously approved CDRL submission
p) Submittal of updated IRSs, if changed from previously approved CDRL submissions
q) Submittal of an updated JTA-Army compliance matrix
r) Submittal of an updated Software FMECA, if changed from previously approved CDRL
submission
s) Elimination or proposed testing of single point catastrophic and critical failure paths for
software
t) Submittal of an update to the Depot Partnership Study Technical Report
u) Process capability analyses
v) Production resources commonality matrix
w) Production/ RECAP/Upgrade tooling list
x) Any additional criteria agreed to at the System PDR
2.5.6.5.2 System CDR Exit Criteria.

Minimum exit criteria includes:
a) establishment of the hardware product baseline
b) software design complete and ready to release to code
c) the path ahead for resolution of action items, documentation of all Government comments
that must be addressed to obtain Government approval of submitted deliverables
d) Government concurrence that the System CDR exit criteria have been satisfied, and any
additional criteria agreed to at the System PDR
73
2.5.7 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The WBS shown in Attachment 3 identifies major program elements, along with their associated
major tasks. The WBS established the framework for planning and control of management,
technical, and cost activities including statement of work and design-to-cost. The WBS provided
the baseline for construction of the program master network and lower tier schedules. This
identification enabled uniform planning, scheduling, budgeting, technical performance parameter
allocations, and work authorization, as well as collection of performance data for management
surveillance. The WBS Dictionary contains a technical description of each task element, cost
content for that element, and identification of the element to the applicable contract Statement of
Work (SOW). The WBS is traced to the Sikorsky work packages, Sikorsky Planning And
Control System (SPACS), the resource allocation matrix, and the IMS.
2.5.8 GFE Management

For the UH-60M I/Q contract, GFE is managed by SAC via their UH-60M Remanufacture
Program GFE Operating Procedures which specify how to disposition, scrap, and rework.
Equipment which is provided to the I/Q contract as GFE is documented in the H Clause of the
I/Q contract, DAAH23-01-C-0053. For LRIP and FRP, GFE is managed via Sikorsky's
Government Property Systems Manual which specifies how GFE is stored, accounted for, and
dispositioned. Equipment which is provided to production contracts as GFE is documented on
DD-Form 610 for the respective contract.
2.6 Integration with Other Program Management Control Efforts
2.6.1 CAIV
CAIV methodology is utilized by the UH-60M Modernization Program for reducing total
ownership cost and improving system performance through the utilization of aggressive unit
production costs and O&S cost objectives to meet user requirements. The UH-60M
Modernization Program has established a Cost Performance IPT (CP IPT), which includes
representation from each IPT, the Contractor, the User community, the Materiel Developer and
the Combat Developer, to achieve the most optimal outcome. Initially bi-weekly design to unit
cost (DTUC) meetings were utilized to monitor the cost basis throughout all significant design
stages. DTUC remains a tracked requirement within the Performance Specification due to the
fact that Specification changes result in DTUC adjustments. The CP IPT will make
recommendations to the PMWG and report, as a minimum, at all system level reviews. Cost is
considered during the SCN process. Resources are required for investment in the CAIV process
to perform tradeoff analyses, train key personnel, and ensure an overall understanding of CAIV
and its role in the UH-60M Modernization Program.
2.6.1.1 Cost Reduction and Avoidance Initiatives

Several initiatives have been/will be pursued in order to integrate the CAIV philosophy into the
UH-60M solution.
74
2.6.1.2 Contract Types
2.6.1.2.1 Cost Plus Award Fee Contract

UH-60M/HH-60M MEDEVAC I/Q Contract. The I/Q contract was awarded for developing,
integrating, qualifying and testing both recapitalize/upgrade and production applications for UH-
60M and integration of medical equipment on the HH-60M. In doing so, the contract includes 7
UH-60M and one HH-60M aircraft for developmental and operational test purposes. A Cost
Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is used to provide motivation for the contractor and leverage
for the Government. Research and Development funding was used for this contract. For each
award fee period, portions of the award fee pool will be available to the Contractor based on his
performance with respect to the following criteria:
• PMC Troop Movement Combat Radius

• External Lift Configuration Combat Radius
• Cockpit Integration
• Reliability/O&S Cost
• Program Schedule and Cost
Effectiveness will be based on exceeding requirements of AVNS-PRF-10002 and optimization

of situational awareness while maximizing operational safety and minimizing pilot workload.
The contractor has received no award fees for the above listed technical areas. Additionally, one
of the areas which the contractor is evaluated is System Engineering execution. Failure to follow
System Engineering practices acceptable to the Government would result in a poor quarterly
award fee evaluation for the Contractor’s System Engineering organization and potentially result
in a reduced award fee for the contractor.
2.6.1.2.2 Firm Fixed Price Contract

UH-60M/HH-60M MEDEVAC Low Rate Initial Production Requirement. The
LRIP requirement is expected to be met by a modification to the Firm Fixed Price, Multi-Year,
Multi-Service VI Contract (MYVI), DAAH23-02-C-0006. The modification will provide the
capability to procure five (5) New Production UH-60M LRIP aircraft in FY05 following
milestone decision. These five (5) aircraft were Long Lead Funded with FY04 Long Lead
Funds. Additionally, this contract includes the procurement of 17 additional new UH/HH-60M
aircraft in FY06 Options provide for a total of up to 30 UH-60M LRIP aircraft to be procured.
The decision to utilize a MY VI contract modification will result in a combined effort under the
existing MY VI contract and purchase a higher quantity of UH-60M LRIP aircraft in the base
requirement. Expectations are that the Government will gain economies in several proposal
areas, with the effect of lowering the individual aircraft total cost.
The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type was chosen because sufficient cost/price data is
available to permit realistic estimates of the probable costs of performance. The Government
can negotiate fair and reasonable prices based on this cost/price information and the data
available from prior purchases of similar aircraft. Lastly, the contractor is willing to accept a
fixed price contract and the associated risks.
75
2.6.1.3 Production Phase Objectives

The principle CAIV objectives during the Production Phase are to reduce average unit
production cost, improve reliability, and reduce O&S costs through initiatives such as value
engineering and process improvement. The contracting strategy for this phase will utilize
warranties to ensure threshold performance demonstrated during SDD as well as incentive
arrangements such as award fees and/or profit sharing of demonstrated cost reductions.
2.6.1.4 O&S Phase Objectives

The objective of reducing the O&S fleet costs will, by necessity, be focused on those
components which are new to the UH-60M. Additionally, because the engine is a large O&S
cost driver on UH-60A models (two-thirds of the current fleet), replacement/conversion of the
T700-GE-700 engine to T700-GE-701D (including the addition of the IDGB) is expected to
reduce fleetwide O&S costs. The UH-60Ls, with the T700-GE-701C engines will also be
replaced by the UH-60M upgraded to the T700-GE-701D configuration, but the reliability
improvements will not be as great as for the replaced UH-60A models. A newly designed drag
beam will be included in all productionUH-60Ms which will significantly reduce incidences of
cracking in the main landing gear strut. The Wide Chord Blade will impact performance and
O&S. The WCB does not require the Blade Integrity Monitor (BIM) utilized by pressurized
titanium spar designs. This will increase reliability, and reduce maintenance, as well as the
numerous false alarms associated with the BIMs. The IVHMS will provide comprehensive
monitoring of aircraft system parameters, exceedances, and aircraft vibrations and is expected to
decrease the time necessary to identify and diagnose anomalies. The IVHMS will record over
200 discrete system parameters at various sample rates, as well as vibration levels at multiple
locations corresponding to highly stressed, rotating components. The ultimate goal of IVHMS
implementation is to replace time-based inspections and maintenance with on-condition based
inspections and maintenance by enabling maintainers to better analyze and predict component
anomalies and failures. In addition, the IVHMS will provide trending data that allows early
detection of potential safety of flight failures. An integrated Cockpit Voice and Data Recorder is
part of this subsystem and will provide a Crash Survivable Memory (CSM) that will allow the
recovery of flight critical data and enhance the Army’s capability to analyze mishap data.
Historic data from the Utility Helicopters Logistics Branch establishes a UH-60A/L O&S Cost
baseline from which to compare UH-60M improvements. RAM data for the UH-60M is
collected over the course of UH-60M testing and fielding. From this RAM data, O&S costs can
be projected for the UH-60M fleet and compared to the legacy fleet.
2.6.2 Risk Management

Risk Management is the responsibility of the UH-60M Project Manager. Integrated risk
management efforts focus on monitoring and managing program elements which may impact the
success of the program by utilizing technical performance measurement, cost, and schedule
tools, in existence and in use by the UH-60M PM and the Contractor. Identification of these
areas through the IPT process may result in further evaluation of the risk management process
and the identification of new risk elements. The continuous feedback and update cycle of the
RMP provide the UH-60M Modernization Program with the means to predict future resource
requirements, as well as manage near term goals through the Risk Management Plan.
76
The Risk Management process, Figure 18, identifies a hierarchy of risks that may potentially
impact the successful achievement of program goals, objectives, thresholds, and/or established
program milestone exit criteria.
Pla Identif Analysi
Risk
Risk Risk
FIGURE 18. RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
2.6.2.1 Execution
Risk Management for the UH-60M Modernization Program is accomplished as an integral part
of the program management function. Risk is addressed as a single entity consisting of technical,
cost, schedule, and supportability throughout the entire program life cycle. The elements of the
risk management approach and the general guidelines for each element are described in
subsequent paragraphs.
2.6.2.1.1 Risk Planning

Each IPT will assess, handle, and monitor risks pertinent to their IPT area of responsibility.
Actions will be assigned for specific risk management activity and internal reporting and
documentation procedures will be maintained. The PMWG will ensure that all IPT activities are
consistent with the RMP and that appropriate revisions to this plan are made as required.
Each IPT reports risk status to the Risk Manager on a scheduled timely basis. The SE IPT lead
serves as the Risk Manager and maintains risk information in the Risk Management Database to
be used by the Government and the Contractor. Each IPT will identify resource requirements to
implement risk management actions to include time, material, personnel, and cost. Training is a
major consideration.
2.6.2.1.2 Risk Assessment

Risk assessments will be performed by each IPT and the PMWG with active participation from
both Government and Contractor personnel. IPTs will continually assess the risks in their areas,
reviewing critical risk areas, risk ratings and prioritization, and the effectiveness of risk
mitigation actions when necessary. The assessment process will be iterative with each
assessment building upon the results of previous assessments. Risk assessments from the IPTs
will be updated by the Risk Manager and results presented at all functional and program reviews,
77
with a final update for this phase prepared no later than six months prior to MS C. To date, all of
these updates have been accomplished.
2.6.2.1.2.1 Identification
Identification is the first step in the risk assessment process. The basic process involves
searching the UH-60M Modernization Program to determine those critical events that may
prevent the program from achieving its objectives. Risks will be identified by each IPT through
application of knowledge, best judgment and experience, lessons learned from similar programs,
and subject matter experts (SMEs). Following are the general procedures for risk identification:
• Understand the requirements and program performance goals.
• Determine technical/performance risks related to engineering and manufacturing processes.
• Determine technical/performance risks associated with the product in the critical areas.
• Identify cost, schedule, and supportability issues/risks.
2.6.2.1.2.2 Analysis
Risk analysis is an evaluation of the identified risk events to determine the likelihood of the
events occurring and their consequences, to assign a risk rating based on the program criteria,
and to prioritize risks. Each IPT is responsible for analyzing those risk events that they identify.
Techniques to support risk analysis include trade studies, test results, modeling and simulation,
expert opinion, system engineering analysis, risk assessments, or any other accepted analysis
technique. The risk analysis process involves:
• Identification of WBS elements.
• Evaluation of WBS elements using the risk areas (Figure 20) to determine risk events.
• Assignment of likelihood/probability and consequence to each risk event to establish a risk
rating.
• Prioritization of each risk event relative to other risks.
Each IPT will evaluate each risk event in terms of consequence to technical performance,
schedule, cost, or impact to other IPTs and assign a level for the consequence. Figure 19 will be
used when assigning values for likelihood/probability and consequence to risk events.
78
RISK LEVELS
ASSESSMENT GUIDE
HIGH - Unacceptable Major
e Disruption likely. Different
Likelihood Criteria approach required. Priority
d
Likelihood
management attention
What Is The Likelihood required.
Level
The Risk Will Happen? c
MODERATE - Some
a Remote
disruption. Different approach
b Unlikely b may be required. Additional
c Likely management attention may be
d Highly Likely a needed.
e Near Certainty 1 2 3 4 5
Consequence LOW - Minimum impact.
Minimum oversight needed to
ensure risk remains low.
Consequence Criteria
(Given the Risk is Realized. What is the Magnitude of the Impact?)
Level Technical and/or Schedule and/or Cost and/or Impact on Other Team
Performance
1 Minimal or No Impact Minimal or No Impact Minimal or No Impact None
2 Acceptable with Some Additional Resources Required; <5% Some Impact

Reduction in Margin Able to Meet Need Dates
Acceptable with Minor Slip in Key Milestone; 5 - 7% Moderate Impact
3 Significant Reduction Not Able to Meet Need Dates
in Margin
4 Acceptable, No Major Slip in Key Milestone >7 - 10% Major Impact

Remaining Margin or Critical Path Impacted
5 Unacceptable Can’t Achieve Key Team or >10% Unacceptable

Major Program Milestone
FIGURE 19. RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
2.6.2.1.2.3 Risk Handling

For all risks identified, risk handling methods must be developed by the IPTs. The handling
techniques should be evaluated in terms of feasibility, expected effectiveness, cost and schedule
implications, and the effect on system technical performance. Reduction of requirements as a
risk avoidance technique will be used only as a last resort, and then only with participation and
approval of the user’s representative. Evaluation of risk handling techniques should consider the
following:
• What must be done
• List of all assumptions
• Level of effort and material required
• Resources required that are outside scope of contract
• Estimated implementation cost
• Proposed schedule in relation to Program milestones
• Recommended metrics for tracking
• Other areas of impact
• Person responsible for implementing option
Risk handling methods will be integrated into program planning and scheduling. IPTs will
develop these actions and events in the context of the WBS elements, establishing links between
79
them and specific work packages to simplify determinations of impact on cost, schedule,
supportability, and performance.
2.6.2.1.3 Risk Monitoring

Risk monitoring is the systematic tracking and evaluation of the progress and effectiveness of
risk handling actions by the comparison of predicted results of the planned actions with the
results actually achieved. The status of the risks and the effectiveness of these actions will be
agenda items for all functional and program reviews, and will be reported to the PMWG on a
monthly basis or as requested.
2.6.2.2 Risk Mitigation

Attachment 7 contains a sample risk mitigation package for the SE IPT which is used by the UH-
60M PM to identify, track, and mitigate risks.
MS-C MTBEMA Entrance Criteria C,S

Systems Engineering
e FMS Build C S,C

MEP
d Comm/Nav Identification C,S

MEP
c
AWR Process S
SE
b
Likelihood
Unscheduled Maintenance C
a Logistics
1 2 3 4 5
Consequence
FIGURE 20. RISK AREAS
2.6.3 Earned Value Management

Earned Value Management (EVM) is the use of an integrated management system that
coordinates work scope, schedule, and cost goals and objectively measures progress toward these
goals. EVM emphasizes the planning and integration of a program’s technical, cost and schedule
to support program manager’s decisions by providing an adequate basis for responsible decision
making by both contractor and DoD management personnel by requiring that contractors’
internal management control systems to produce data that: (a) indicate work progress; (b)
80
properly relates technical, cost and schedule accomplishments; (c) are valid, timely, and able to
be audited; and (d) provides managers with information at a practical level of summarization.
This internal management system is the Sikorsky Planning and Control System (SPACS). It is
utilized to identify variances (cost, schedule, technology, workforce) at the Work Package level.
Through System Engineering processes, the contractors’ work is broken down into measurable
work packages which align with the UH-60M WBS. These work packages are assigned budget
and schedule. Progress in executing these work packages are continuously tracked by the
contractor’s CAMs and reported monthly. These impacts are identified and rolled up to the next
level of WBS management. Eventually these impacts are captured in the IMS and the IMP and
be presented at an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR). EVM focus is one of the four major areas
of the program management process: organizing and staffing, planning, directing and
controlling. EVM is used during SDD Contract and on the LRIP Contract.
2.6.3.1 Organizing and Staffing

The UH-60M PM, along with its Sikorsky counterparts, developed organizational structures that
clearly delineated responsibilities, work assignments, and the intended management process.
The organization provided clear task definition and assignment of work. It allowed the budget to
be distributed over the planned work and facilitated budget changes where there were contract
changes. This organizing process provided tools to address primary issues such as: what work
needed to be done - defined by the WBS, who would do the work - defined by the organization
breakdown structure, and work assignments to individuals - defined by the Control Account. In
addition, the people performing the work were organized to facilitate effective management.
Whether the organization was designed along program, function, natural work teams, or matrix
lines, it is necessary that the organizational structure reflects the way the people will accomplish
the work given to them.
2.6.3.2 Planning
Planning is considered the most important of all of the programmatic functions. The UH-60M
plan provides the basis for the development of a meaningful, supportable budget in an effectively
organized and staffed program office. It defines a continuous process of looking to the future. It
evaluates work to be done (scope), the order and time necessary for successful accomplishment
of the work (schedule), and the resources necessary to accomplish the work (cost). Planning will
continue throughout the life of this effort. Since it is an ongoing process, a “baseline” has been
established in order to evaluate performance. The baseline represents a “snapshot” of the plan
(scope, schedule, and cost) at a particular point in time and retained as a tool for performance
evaluation. This baseline allows measuring any changes to the assignment of causes and update
of plans to reflect the changes. The “configuration management” process serves to maintain
scope control. In the UH-60M Modernization Program there is a direct relationship between the
configuration baseline management and scope changes in the earned value management process.
Configuration changes are valid reasons for baseline changes. Scheduling is also an important
aspect of planning. The UH-60M Modernization Program established a master ‘critical path’
program schedule that networks the important program activities and milestones. Schedules
contain current and baseline data sets. The current data continuously reflects progress and
changes to future plans, while the baseline remains stable. The baseline data ties to approved
completion times and events, while the current schedule shows expectations. The baseline has
81
been changed to reflect approved changes in times or events. The current Estimate At
Completion (EAC) reflects the cost plan. The Budget At Completion (BAC) represents the cost
baseline used for performance evaluation and earned value calculation. The budget ties to the
approved cost for the effort. Budgets were changed as necessary to reflect approved changes in
scope, schedule, or the cost of the effort.
2.6.3.3 Directing
The content of the awarded contracts, as well as changes and modifications to those contracts,
direct and control this Program. In addition, the PM has used other contract vehicles to direct
government organizations in support of the program. Examples of such vehicles include Military
Interdepartmental Purchase Requests, project orders and work requests, Memoranda of
Agreement, and Memoranda of Understanding. Controlling the PM’s discretionary decision
ability is limited and effectively impacts (1) the program scope (what tasks will be done), (2) the
schedule (when and what will be done), and (3) the program funding or budget (the cost of what
will be done when). Upon detection of a deviation from the program plan, a control mechanism
can be be activated to bring the system back into line. The PM’s control mechanisms include
provisions contained in the contract to impact contract performance such as the change clause
(revise, delete scope or requirements), incentives (monetary - on cost, schedule, and technical
performance), award fees (additional fee awarded for excellence in management areas or
reduction of fee awarded for poor performance), and when appropriate, suspension of progress
payments (punitive - resolution of issue required) or possibly termination of the contract
(punitive – failure to perform).
2.6.3.4 Controlling
EVM tasks in the program control phase include obtaining the program management documents
(e.g., SOW, Mission Needs Statement (MNS) and ORD, and Program Acquisition Baseline) and
reviewing and understanding the key features that affect the program. Most important is
obtaining contractor schedules/reports that are provided through the CDRL, comparing the
contractor reports to the program baseline and reviewing and comparing the monthly CDRL
submissions such as the CPR and the quarterly Contractor Flight Safety Release (CFSR) and
being aware of the changes, from month to month, and maintaining an audit trail of those
changes. The Program performs trend analysis on the data and compares the schedule trends to
the CPR trends. The Army will review the program contract and interview functional team
members to determine the program requirements, milestones and specifications as they relate to
schedules. the Army will also conduct on-site visits or teleconferencing to other government
agencies, prime contractor, subcontractor and associate contractors to develop an overall
understanding with all parties of the program requirements and program status. Continuing
analyses of the “critical path” will be performed to determine high-risk areas of the program and
identify and analyze alternate (potential) critical paths. Schedule changes are being documented
for historical purposes. If warranted, lower level schedules will be developed for further
analyses. The UH-60M Modernization Program will evaluate the cost and schedule data using
stochastic methods (i.e., simulation). The key features of the program are addressed with
contractor, subcontractor and customer. The contractor will provide data in electronic transfer
format. Electronic transfer is encouraged to promote information exchange by participating in
team meetings, program reviews, schedule boards, and scheduling side meetings when
82
warranted. All schedule changes will be documented and an audit trail maintained for the
Program Management Office and to assist in any reviews or audits by appropriate agencies.
Earned value analysis is viewed by the PM as a business management tool that results in an
efficient, optimized, successful program. Similarly, earned value procedures are essential for the
identification of “early warning signs” for problems. These procedures will identify where the
problem is, how much time and money is being used, and provide a prediction for the cost at
completion.
All programmatic tools are similarly mapped to ensure information is available and can be
associated with appropriate outputs from other systems. This ensures that all technical
performance, cost, and schedule issues are included in the different reporting systems used by
the UH-60M PM and the Contractor. Each Integrated Product Team (IPT) applies this data to
the risk elements for proper risk assessment and mitigation. Each IPT develops risk items and
provides periodic inputs in the form of risk charts for ongoing assessments of Program risk. This
process has been documented within the Program and is conducted IAW the Risk Management
Plan.
The information obtained during the analysis process is presented to the appropriate IPT leader
on a monthly basis to augment other technical performance, cost, and schedule reports. Data
developed from the monthly cost account analyses is summarized in text and graphic format for
UH-60M IPT leaders. The data provides technical and business staff with timely information
that is critical in such areas as technical interchange, rationale for decision making, validation of
cost and schedule trends and forecasts, and serves as a basis for potential work-around plans to
mitigate identified risks. Monthly cost management reviews are conducted which include an
overview of program status in terms of cost and schedule trends, life cycle cost, and focus on
program risk elements and other resource drivers, as well as, on required management actions.
The review provides senior management with a summary of monthly-integrated cost analysis for
such activities as cost reporting analysis, risk management assessments, life cycle phase
activities, CAIV program, program funding execution, and review of open action items. Areas
of emphasis for cost account analysis vary throughout the life of the UH-60M Modernization
Program. The process employed within the UH-60M Modernization Program is flexible and
robust enough to accommodate changes in known or potential risk areas.
2.6.4 Leveraging Other Efforts

The UH-60M Modernization Program is utilizing the results of other Government programs
developing material for use in Army Aviation. As a result, some material is being provided as
GFE. (reference GFE List from UH-60M I/Q SOW). Some of it is directly portable to the UH-
60M and others require some tailoring for installation on the UH-60M Airframe.
2.6.4.1 Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System
The EGI being developed by PM AME will be installed on the CH-47 Chinook and the AH-64
Apache Longbow. The UH-60M will use two of these EGIs for redundancy. The H-764G EGI,
integrates the functions of a GPS and an INS into one single line replaceable unit (LRU). The
system is an all-attitude navigation system providing outputs of linear and angular acceleration,
83
velocity, position attitude (roll, pitch, and platform azimuth), magnetic and true heading, altitude,
body angular rates, time tags and time. The EGIs provide precise positioning information
enabling precise area navigation for both tactical and IFR approaches. The EGIs will replace the
legacy Doppler/GPS Navigation System on the BLACK HAWK UH-60s.
2.6.4.2 Army Mission Planning Software/Joint Mission Planning Software

(AMPS/JMPS)
The AMPS/JMPS is an off-aircraft support system that provides preflight mission planning
capabilities. The AMPS/JMPS Product line under PM AME will develop the UH-60M specific
applications to run in the AMPS/JMPS computer. AMPS/JMPS is used in Army Aviation
Tactical Operating Centers (TOC) to plan missions for US Army aircraft. Planning conducted in
the TOC results in mission data which includes navigation information such as waypoints and
threat areas and communications information such as radio frequencies and communication
security data. The information is transferred to the aircraft via Personal Computer Memory Card
International Association (PCMCIA) cards, which are loaded into the Data Transfer System
(DTS).
2.6.4.3 Improved Data Modem (IDM)
The development of the IDM is a PM AME system that is used on a number of other PEO
aviation systems. The IDM is the gateway for the UH-60M to the tactical internet. The IDM is a
high speed data modem used to send and receive digital information from other aircraft and
ground based assets. It too is developed by PM AME and will be installed on other Army
aircraft.
2.6.4.4 Composite Stabilator
This is a folding stabilator similar in design to the folding stabilator used on the Air Force HH-
60G, the Navy SH-60, and the Army’s MH-60K. The primary difference is that most of the
structure is made of composite (graphite impregnated with resin for skin, torque box attached to
skin with fabric and tape thermally cured, leading edge of the airfoil constructed with
honeycomb core of Nomex Hexel material) in order to reduce weight and move the aircraft
center of gravity (CG) forward. The composite stabilator is a project of Sikorsky’s research and
development and is manufactured by an Israeli company. The initial development was not
funded by the UH-60M Modernization Program but integration testing for the UH-60M airframe
will be funded by the UH PMO.
2.6.4.5 Air Warrior
The UH-60M shall accommodate the PM AME developed Air Warrior aviator ensemble worn
by the flight crew. The UH-60M airframe shall have structural and electrical A-Kit provisions to
support the common B-kit Microclimatic Cooling Systems and mask blower which shall be
removable from the airframe when not in use.
2.6.4.6 IHUD
The IHUD provides flight symbology data to the pilot/co-pilot through a display mounted to the
night vision goggles (AN/AVS-7). The night vision goggles are GFE and are issued to the pilot
through the unit. The IHUD is an improved version of the Heads-Up Display currently fielded to
84
the UH Fleet. The Advanced Symbol Generator (ASG) replaces the Signal Data Converter
(SDC) and provides the bussed interface to the UH-60M.
2.6.5 Airworthiness Qualification

The UH-60 PM has made the decision that dual specifications and dual contracts, in the form of
the I/Q SOW and the Airworthiness Qualification (AQ) SOW presented not only additional cost
and effort but could potentially result in the loss of critical system functional and verification
requirements as the AQ SOW contract was completed. An effort was initiated to analyze the AQ
SOW for possible inclusion within the I/Q SOW and/or the Performance Specification. After
extensive efforts it was realized that all of the requirements within the AQ SOW could be
captured within those two documents. This analysis was presented to Aviation Engineering
Directorate (AED) and the contractor for review, input, and concurrence. The current path-ahead
is to develop/refine specification and documentation changes which include all AQ requirements
within the program SOW and specifications.
3.0 Summary
The UH-60M approach to effective system engineering management is threefold. First, it
provides an experienced, system oriented, engineering organization with the direct responsibility
and authority to supervise the conduct of the technical elements of the program. Second, it
implements system engineering through effective planning, analysis, evaluation and
documentation. Third, it provides control through a series of checks and balances that function
as both internal audits and formal program reviews. These system engineering responsibilities
will be coordinated with the SE IPT. System engineering checks and balances are provided by
schedule, cost and technical risk management that identify exceptions to approved work plans.
The process then requires the development of recovery plans for all identified exceptions. With
the integration of test planning activities into the overall system engineering effort, additional
emphasis is placed on high risk areas to ensure program success.
85
Acronyms
A2C2S Army Aviation Command and Control System
AATD Advanced Aviation Technology Directorate
ADO Army Digitization Office
AED Aviation Engineering Directorate
AES Aviation Electronic Systems
AFCC Advanced Flight Control Computer
AFCS Automatic Flight Control System
ALSE Aviation Life Support Equipment
AMBL Air Maneuver Battle Lab
AMCOM Aviation and Missile Command
AMDF Aviation Master Data File
AMOGS Aviation Medical Oxygen Generating System
AMPM AMSAA Maturity Projection Model
AMPM AMSAA Maturity Projection Model
AMPS/JMPS Army Mission Planning Software/Joint Mission Planning Software
AMRDEC Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center
APB Acquisition Program Baseline
APEX Advanced Prototyping and Experimenting
APM Assistant Project Manager
AQ Airworthiness Qualification
AQSOW Airworthiness Qualification Statement of Work
ARI Aviation Restructure Initiative
ARINC Aero Nautical Radio Incorporated
ASARC Army Systems Acquisition Review Committee
ASE Aviation Survival Equipment
AST ATEC System Team
ATCOM Advanced Tactical Combat Model
ATEC Army Test and Evaluation Command
ATTC Aviation Technical Test Center
AUC Average Unit Cost
AV Avionics
AVC Active Vibration Control
Aveh Air Vehicle
AVUM Aviation Unit Maintenance
BAC Budget at Completion
BFT Blue Force Tracker
BHIVE Battlefield Highly Immersive Virtual Environment
BHPS BLACK HAWK Players Station
BIM Blade Integrity Monitoring
BIT Built In Test
C2 Command and Control
C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance
CAAS Common Avionics Architecture System
86
CAD Computer Aided Design

CADARS Chemical Agent Deposition Analysis for Rotorcraft Surfaces
CAIV Cost As an Independent Variable
CAM Control Account Manager
CCB Configuration Control Board
CDD Capabilities development Document
CDR Critical Design Review
CDRL Contract Data Requirements List
CDU Control Display Unit
CEFS Crashworthy External Fuel System
CEP Common Engine Program
CFE Contractor Furnished Equipment
CFR Contractor Flight Release
CFSR Contractor Flight Safety Release
CG Center of Gravity
CI Configuration Item
CIDS Critical Item Development Specification
CITIS Contractor Integrated Technical Information Service
CM Configuration Management
CMDS Counter Measure Dispensing System
CMWS Common Missile Warning System
COIC Critical Operational Issues and Concerns
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf
CP IPT Cost Performance IPT
CPAF Cost Plus Award Fee
CPC Corrosion Prevention and Control
CRD Capstone Requirements Document
CSC Computer Software Component
CSCI Computer Software Configuration Item
CSU Computer Software Unit
CSWG Crew Station Working Group
CTC Composite Tail Cone
CTP Combined Testing
CTP Critical Technical Parameters
CTSF Central Technical Support Facility
CTT Combined Testing Team
CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder
CY Calendar Year
DAB Defense Acquisition Board
DAWIA Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act
DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency
DCU Digital Control Unit
DEC Digital Engine Control
Deg degrees
DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation
DISR DoD IT Standards Registry
DITSCAP DoD Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation
Process
DMU Digital Mock-Up
87
DoD Department of Defense

DOORS Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System
DOT&E Director of Operational Test & Evaluation
DOTMLOMLPFS Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Organization,
Materiel, Personnel and Soldiers Facilities
DPM Deputy Project Manager
DR Decision Review
DT Development Test
DT&E Development Test and Evaluation
DTOSC Design to Operations and Supply Cost
DTP Detail Test Plan
DTUC Design To Unit Cost
DTUPC Design To Unit Production Cost
DUAP Dual Use Application Program
DVE Degraded Visual Environment
E3 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects
EAC Estimate at Completion
ECP Engineering Change Proposal
ECS Environmental Control System
ECU Electronic Control Unit
EDP Event Design Plan
EGI Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System
EISIS Electronic Standby Instrument System
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
EMI Electromagnetic Interference
EMRL Engineering Manufacturing Readiness Level
EMV Electromagnetic Vulnerability
ESM Engineering Services Modification
ESSS External Stores Support Systems
EUD Early User Demonstration
EVM Earned Value Management
F Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control
FAT First Article Test
FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below
FBW Fly-By-Wire
FCA Functional Configuration Audit
FCC Flight Control Computer
FCS Flight Control System
FDR Flight Data Recorder
FFP Firm Fixed Price
FH Flight Hours
FLIR Forward Looking Infra-Red
FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
FMECA Failure Modes and Effects and Criticality Analysis
FMS Flight Management System
FPS Flight Path Stabilization
88
FRAB Functional Requirements Authentication Board

FRACAS Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System
FRIES Fast Rope Insertion/Extraction System
FRP Full Rate Production
FSP Flight Safety Parts
ft feet
FUE First Unit Equipped
GATM Global Air Traffic Management
GCO Government Concept of Operations
GFE Government Furnished Equipment
GIG Global Information Grid
GOSC General Officers Steering Committee
GPPU General Purpose Processing Unit
GPS Global Positioning System
GSE Ground Support Equipment
HERO Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordinance
HLA High Level Architecture
HMMP Hazardous Material Management Plan
HMU Hydro Mechanical Unit
hr hours
HW Hardware Configuration Item
HWCI Hardware Configuration Item
HWIL Hardware-in-the-Loop
I/Q Integration and Qualification
I/Q SOW Integration/Qualification Statement of Work
IAIC Intra Army Interoperability Certification
IAW In Accordance With
IBR Integrated Baseline Review
IBTF Integrated Bench Test Facility
ICD Interface Control Document/Drawing
ICS Interface Control Specifications
ICS Interim Contractor Support
ICS Interstation Communication System
IDGB Improved Durability Gearbox
IDM Improved Data Modem
IETM Integrated Electronic Technical Manual
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
IHIRSS Improved Hover Infra-Red Suppression System
ILS Integrated Logistics Support
IM Integrated Manufacturing
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IMP Integrated Master Plan
IMS Integrated Master Schedule
INS Inertial Navigation System
IOB Internal Operating Budget
IOT Initial Operational Test
IOT&E Initial Operational Test & Evaluation
IPPD Integrated Process and Product Development
89
IPR Initial Program Review

IPR Interim Progress Review
IPT Integrated Product Team
IR Infra-Red
IR&D Independent Research and Development
IRA Integrated Risk Assessment
IRS Interface Requirements Specification
ISA Improved Stabilator Actuator
ISAQ Interim Statement Airworthiness Qualification
ISSE Information Systems Security Engineering
ITEP Improved Turbine Engine Program
IVHMS Integrated Vehicle Health & Management System
JACS JTRS Alternate Communications Suite
JEDMICS Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System
JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council
JSF Joint Strike Force
JTA Joint Technical Architecture
JTA-A Joint Tactical Architecture-Army
JTIC Joint Interoperability Test Command
JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System
JVMF Joint Variable Message Format
KIP Key Interface Parameter
km kilometers
KPP Key Performance Parameter
LFT&E Live Fire Test and Evaluation
LOC Lines of Code
LRIP Low Rate Initial Production
LRU Line Replaceable Unit
LUT Limited User Test
M&S Modeling and Simulation
MANPRINT Manpower and Personnel Integration
MANTECH Manufacturing Technology
MBL Maneuver Battle Lab
MCB Minimum Commonality Baseline
MDA Milestone Decision Authority
MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Programs
MEDEVAC Aeromedical Evacuation
MEP Mission Equipment Package
MFD Multi-Function Display
MFR Memorandum for Record
MMBL Mounted Maneuver Battle Lab
MNS Mission Need Statement
MOE Measurement of Effectiveness
MR Maintenance Ratio
MRP Maximum Rated Power
MS Milestone
MTBEMA Mean Time Between Essential Maintenance Actions
MTBMA Mean Time Between Maintenance Actions
90
MTBMAF Mean Time Between Mission Affecting Failures

MTTR Mean Time To Repair
MUVES Modular Unix-based Vulnerability Estimation Suite
MYIV Multi-Year IV
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASTRAN NASA Structural Analysis
NAVAIRSYSCOM Naval Air Systems Command
NAWCAD Navair Warfare Center Aircraft Division
NCOW-RM Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model
NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NTE Not To Exceed
O&S Operation & Sustainment
OBRTB On Board Rotor Track and Balance
OMS/MP Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile
ORD Operational Requirements Document
OSD Office of Secretary of Defense
OT Operational Test
OTRR Operational Test Readiness Review
PA Pressure Altitude
PAB Program Acquisition Board
PCA Physical Configuration Audit
PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
PCR Problem Change Report
PD Production and Deployment
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PESHE Programmatic Environmental, Safety, Health Evaluation
PIDS Prime Item Development Specification
PM Program Manager
PM AME PM Aviation Mission Equipment
PMC Primary Mission Configuration
PO Program Office
PMR Program Management Review
PMWG Program Manager's Working Group
POL Petroleum Oil and Lubricant
PPR Preliminary Program Review
PRA Production Readiness Assessment
PRR Production Readiness Review
PSAC Plan for Aspects of Software Certification
PSM Processor Switch Module
PUI Program Unique Identifier
PVI Pilot Vehicle Interface
R&M Reliability and Maintainability
RAM Reliability, Availability, Maintainability
RASCAL Rotorcraft Aircrew Systems Concept Airborne Laboratory
RDECOM Research, Development and Engineering Command
RFCS Research Flight Control System
RFD Request for Deviation
RMP Risk Management Plan
91
RR Risk Reduction
RSOI Reception Staging and Onward Integration
SAASM Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module
SAFE Stochastic Analysis of Fragmenting Effects
SAS Stabilization Augmentation System
SASO Stability and Support Operations
SATCOM Satellite Communications
SCN Specification Change Notice
SDD System Design Description
SDD System Development and Demonstration
SDP Software Development Plan
SDS Smart Dispenser System
SE Systems Engineering
SEMP System Engineering Master Plan
SEP System Engineering Plan
SER Sikorsky Engineering Report
SER System Evaluation Report
SES Sikorsky Engineering Specifications
SES Sikorsky Engineering Specification
SFR System Functional Review
shp Shaft Horsepower
SIL System Integration Lab
SLAP Service Life Assessment Program
SLS Sea Level Standard
SME Subject Matter Expert
SOA Special Operations Aviation
SoS System of Systems
SOW Statement of Work
SPACS Sikorsky Planning and Control System
SQASH Stochastic Quantitative Analysis of System Hierarchies
SQCR Sequencer
SRR System Requirements Review
SRS Software Requirements Specification
SS&DD Simulation Support and Development Directorate
SSAA System Security Accreditation Agreement
SSDD System/Segment Design Document
SSPP System Safety Program Plan
STD Software Test Description
STEP Simulation, Test, and Evaluation Process
STP Software Test Plan
SW Software
SWCI Software Configuration Item
T&E Test & Evaluation
TACAN Tactical Air Navigation
TAPO Task Force Advanced Programs Office
TDP Technical Data Package
TEMP Test & Evaluation Management Plan
TEPP Test and Evaluation Program Plan
92
TIR Test Incident Reports

TM IPT Test Management IPT
TMDE Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment
TOC Tactical Operating Center
TPM Technical Performance Measure
TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command
TSM TRADOC Systems Manager
TTP Tactics, Techniques and Procedures
UH PO Utility Helicopter Program Office
UMSDC Unscheduled Maintenance Sample Data Collection
USAAVNC U.S. Army Aviation Center
VV&A Verification, Validation & Accreditation
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VOR VHF Omni Range
VPM Video Processing Module
VTC Video Teleconference
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WCB Wide Chord Blade
WIPT Working IPT
93
Attachment 1. Statutory and Regulatory Information Requirements
STATUTORY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE WHEN
INFORMATION REQUIRED PROGRAM DOCUMENT TITLE
STATUTE REQUIRED
The following information requirements are statutory for both MDAPs and MAIS acquisition programs
Consideration of Technology 10 U.S.C. 2364 Milestone (MS) A UH-60M Technology Maturity
Issues MS B Assessment
MS C
Market Research 10 U.S.C. 2377 Technology N/A, conducted at Milestone B,
15 U.S.C. 644(e)(2) Opportunities information synopsized in the ASR.
User Needs
MS A
MS B
CCA Compliance 40 U.S.C. Subtitle III, MS A (MAIS only) Chief Information Officer
(All IT–including NSS) (See Sec. 8088, Pub.L. 107-248, Program Initiation Assessment
enclosure 4, Table E4.T1.) for Ships
MS B
MS C (if equivalent
to Full-Rate
Production DR)
Full-Rate
Production DR
Post-Deployment Performance 5 U.S.C. 306, reference Full-Rate N/A at Milestone C, will be
Review 40 U.S.C. 11313, Production DR developed for the FRP DR
Registration of mission-critical Sec. 8088(a), Pub.L. 107- Program Initiation Registration Of Mission-Critical
and mission-essential 248, for Ships And Mission-Essential Information
information systems, RCS: DD- Pub.L. 106-398, Section MS B (if Program Systems
C3I(AR)2096 811 Initiation)
MS C (if Program
Initiation or if
equivalent to Full-
Rate Production
DR)
Full-Rate
Production DR
(After initial
registration, shall be
updated quarterly)
Benefit Analysis and 15 U.S.C. 644(e) MS B N/A Conducted at Milestone B
Determination (applicable to MS C (if no MS B)
bundled acquisitions) (part of
acquisition strategy)
Beyond-LRIP Report (OSD 10 U.S.C. 2399 Full-Rate N/A at MS C, will be developed for
OT&E Oversight programs only) Production DR the FRP DR
Programmatic Environment 42 U.S.C. 4321 Program Initiation Programmatic Environment Safety
Safety and Occupational Health for Ships and Occupational Health Evaluation
Evaluation (PESHE) (Including MS B (PESHE)
National Environmental Policy MS C
Act (NEPA) Compliance Full-Rate
Schedule) Production DR
Spectrum Certification 47 U.S.C. 305 MS B Joint Spectrum Center 1494
Compliance (DD Form 1494) Pub. L. 102-538, 104, MS C (if no MS B)
(applicable to all 47 U.S.C. 901-904,
systems/equipment that require DoD Directive 4650.1,
utilization of the electromagnetic OMB Circular A-11, Part 2,
spectrum)
94
APPLICABLE WHEN
STATUTE REQUIRED
The following information requirements are statutory but are not applicable to MAIS acquisition programs
Selected Acquisition Report 10 U.S.C. 2432 Program Initiation SELECTED ACQUISITION
(SAR)— Reports Control for Ships REPORT (RCS: DD-A&T(Q&A)
Symbol (RCS): MS B and annually 823), PROGRAM: UH-60M
DD-AT&L(Q&A)823 (MDAPs thereafter Recap/Upgrade
only) End of quarter
following
MS C
Full-Rate
Production DR
Breach
Unit Cost Report (UCR)— 10 U.S.C. 2433 Quarterly Contained in SAR (see above)
RCS: DD-AT&L(Q&R)1591
(MDAPs only)
Live-Fire Waiver & Alternate 10 U.S.C. 2366 MS B N/A - Prepared at Milestone B –
LFT&E Plan (N/A for AISs) Live Fire Testing on-going
(Covered Systems only)
Industrial Capabilities (part of 10 U.S.C. 2440 MS B UH-60M Industrial Capability
acquisition strategy) MS C Assessment
(N/A for AISs)
LRIP Quantities 10 U.S.C. 2400 MS B Contained in ADM, 31 MAR 05
(N/A for AISs)
Independent Cost Estimate 10 U.S.C. 2434 Program Initiation CAIG ICE performed as part of
(CAIG) and Manpower Estimate for Ships (cost Milestone preparation
(reviewed by OUSD(P&R)) assessment only)
(N/A for AISs) (MDAPs Only) MS B Manpower Estimate Report for
MS C Block 1, UH-60M BLACK HAWK
Full-Rate Utility Helicopter
Production DR
LFT&E Report, 10 U.S.C. 2366 Full-Rate N/A - will be written following
RCS: DD-OT&E(AR)1845 Production DR ending of live fire
(LFT&E-covered programs
only)
Electronic Warfare (EW) T&E Sec. 220 of Pub. L. 103- Annually N/A – UH-60M is not an EW
RCS: DD-AT&L(A)2137 160 as amended by Sec. system
(EW programs on OSD T&E 214 of Pub. L. 103-337
Oversight List)
Core Logistics Analysis/Source 10 U.S.C. 2460, MS B UH-60M Core Depot Logistics
of Repair Analysis (part of 10 U.S.C. 2464, MS C (if no MS B) Analysis
acquisition strategy) 10 U.S.C. 2466
Competition Analysis (Depot- 10.U.S.C. 2469 MS B Conducted at Milestone B, reviewed
level Maintenance $3M rule) MS C (if no MS B) at Milestone C
(part of acquisition strategy)
95
APPLICABLE WHEN
STATUTE REQUIRED
The following information requirements are statutory for MDAPs and
are applicable to MAIS acquisition programs by DODI 5000.2
Technology Development Sec. 803, Pub.L. 107-314 MS A UH-60M Technology Maturity
Strategy (TDS) MS B Assessment
MS C
Acquisition Program Baseline 10 U.S.C. 2435 Program Initiation BLACK HAWK UPGRADE (PNO:
(APB) for Ships 341), dated 31 MAR 05
MS B
MS C (updated, as
necessary)
Full-Rate
Production DR
Program Deviation Report 10 U.S.C. 2435 Immediately upon a N/A
program deviation Previous reports on file
Operational Test Plan 10 U.S.C. 2399 Prior to start of Being developed for IOTE
(DOT&E Oversight Programs operational test and
only) evaluation
Cooperative Opportunities (part 10 U.S.C. 2350a MS B Reviewed and in approved ASR (31
of acquisition strategy) MS C MAR 05)
The following information requirements are statutory for MAIS acquisition programs and
are not applicable to MDAPs
Certification of compliance with Sec. 8088, Pub.L. 107-248 MS A N/A – not a MAIS program
the Clinger-Cohen Act MS B
MS C (if equivalent
to Full-Rate
Production DR)
Full-Rate
Production DR
Certification of compliance with Sec. 8088, Pub.L. 107-248 MS A N/A – not a MAIS program
the Financial Management MS B
Enterprise Architecture MS C (if equivalent
(Financial Management MAIS to Full-Rate
acquisition programs only) Production DR)
Full-Rate
Production DR
96
REGULATORY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEN
INFORMATION REQUIRED SOURCE PROGRAM DOCUMENT TITLE
REQUIRED
AoA Plan DODI 5000.2 Concept Decision N/A – Past Concept Decision
ICD CJCSI 3170.01, Concept Decision N/A – ORD developed at Milestone
MS A B
MS B
MS C (if Program
Initiation)
CDD CJCSI 3170.01 Program Initiation N/A – ORD developed at Milestone
for Ships B
MS B
CPD CJCSI 3170.01 MS C The ORD For Recapitalization Of
The UH-60 BLACK HAWK Utility
Helicopter Fleet retained its identity
as an ORD rather than being
reformatted into a Capabilities
Production Document in accordance
with the guidance in the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction (CJCSI), 3170.01C, 12
March 2004 to support Milestone C.
Acquisition Strategy DODI 5000.2 Program Initiation ACQUISITION STRATEGY
for Ships FOR THE BLOCK 1, UH-60M
MS B BLACK HAWK
MS C MODERNIZATION PROGRAM,
Full-Rate approved 31 MAR 05
Production DR
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) DODI 5000.2 For MDAPs 2005 Update to the UH-60
- MS A Modernization AoA, TRADOC
- Program Initiation System Manager – Lift, United
for Ships States Army Aviation and
- MS B Warfighting Center, Ft. Rucker,
- MS C (updated as Alabama, 11 February 2005
necessary)
For MAIS
- MS A
- MS B (or
equivalent)
- Full-Rate
Production DR (or
equivalent)
System Threat Assessment DoD Directive 5105.21 Program Initiation UH-60 Systems Threat Assessment
(AIS programs use published for Ships Report
Capstone Information MS B
Operations System Threat MS C
Assessment)
(validated by DIA for ACAT ID
programs)
Technology Readiness DODI 5000.2 Program Initiation UH-60M Technology Maturity
Assessment for Ships Assessment
(preliminary
assessment)
MS B
MS C
Independent Technology DODI 5000.2 MS B N/A – Memo from DUSD (S&T) to
Assessment (ACAT ID only) MS C OIPT and DAB concurring with
(if required by DUSD(S&T)) TMA
97
WHEN
REQUIRED
Command, Control, DoD Instruction 4630.8 and Program Initiation UH-60M ISP/C4I Support Plan
Communications, Computers, DoD Directive 4630.5, for Ships
and Intelligence Support Plan MS B
(C4ISP) (also summarized in the MS C
acquisition strategy)
Command, Control, CJCSI 6212.01, Full-Rate N/A at MS C – will be prepared for
Communications, Computers, DODI 5000.2 Production DR FRP DR
and Intelligence (C4I)
Supportability Certification
Interoperability Certification CJCSI 6212.01, DODI Full-Rate N/A at MS C – will be prepared for
5000.2 Production DR FRP DR
Affordability Assessment DODI 5000.2 MS B Conducted as part of Milestone
MS C Decision by Army and OSD PA&E
Economic Analysis (MAIS only) DODI 5000.2 MS A (may be N/A – not a MAIS program
combined with
AoA)
MS B (or
equivalent)
Full-Rate
Production DR (or
equivalent)
Component Cost Analysis DODI 5000.2 For MDAPs Army Cost Position was developed
(mandatory for MAIS; as - Program Initiation as part of Milestone C preparation
requested by CAE for MDAP) for Ships
- MS B
- Full-Rate
Production DR
For MAIS
- Any time an
Economic Analysis
is required—either
by statute or by the
MDA
Cost Analysis Requirements DODI 5000.2 For MDAPs UH-60M Cost Analysis
Description - Program Initiation Requirements Description
(MDAPs and MAIS Acquisition for Ships
Programs only) - MS B
(CARDs shall be prepared - MS C
according to the procedures - Full-Rate
specified in enclosure 6 of this Production DR
Instruction) For MAIS
- Any time an
Economic Analysis
is required—either
by statute or by the
MDA
Test and Evaluation Master Plan DODI 5000.2 MS A (test and Test And Evaluation Master Plan
(TEMP) evaluation strategy For The Recapitalization/ Upgrade
only) Of The UH-60 BLACK HAWK
MS B Utility Helicopter Fleet
MS C (update, if
necessary)
Full-Rate
Production DR
98
WHEN
REQUIRED
Operational Test Agency Report DODI 5000.2 MS B System Evaluation Report
of Operational Test and MS C Uh-60m BLACK HAWK
Evaluation Results Full-Rate Utility Helicopter produced by
Production DR U.S. Army Test and Evaluation
Command
Component Live-Fire Test and DODI 5000.2 Completion of Live N/A at MS C, will be completed
Evaluation Report (N/A for Fire Test and after completion of life fire test and
AISs) (Covered Systems Only) Evaluation evaluation
Program Protection Plan (PPP) DoD Directive 5200.39, MS B (based on PPP not created. Analysis found we
(for programs with critical DODI 5000.2 approved had no CPI of our own. Memo to
program information) (includes requirements in AAE written indicating that analysis
Anti-Tamper Annex) (also CDD) had been conducted (6 JAN 05)
summarized in the acquisition MS C
strategy)
Exit Criteria DODI 5000.2 Program Initiation In ADM, 31 MAR 05
for Ships
MS A
MS B
MS C
Each Review
Defense Acquisition Executive DODI 5000.2 Quarterly Defense Acquisition Executive
Summary (DAES) Upon POM or BES Summary (DAES) Report, BLACK
RCS: DD-AT&L(Q)1429 submission HAWK UH-60M (PNO: 341)
Upon unit cost
breach
ADM DODI 5000.2 Program Initiation BLACK HAWK Upgrade (UH-
for Ships 60M) Milestone C acquisition
MS A Decision Memorandum (ADM) 31
MS B MAR 05
MS C
Each Review
Earned Value Management OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, Implement EVMS Monthly reports received from
Systems (EVMS) DODI 5000.2 guidelines in prime contractor, multiple IBRs
ANSI/EIA-748- conducted to date
1998 and conduct
Integrated Baseline
Reviews
(applies to
contracts/agreement
s for RDT&E over
$73 million and
procurement or
O&M over $315
million, both in FY
2000 constant
dollars)
99
Attachment 2. IPT Charters
PROGRAM MANAGERS WORKING GROUP CHARTER

PURPOSE The PMWG provides mid-level
management, coordination and oversight
functions to ensure the acquisition of a
producible, testable, a sustainable
system that is affordable across the life
cycle of the system, consistent with
available funding and program
milestones.
SCOPE OF WORK The PMWG is responsible for planning,
execution, integrated product
development, design, and life cycle
management to deliver a cost effective
and supportable aircraft that meets the
user’s requirements on schedule.
INTERFACES The PMWG interfaces with the User
community, the ESC, the IPTs/sub-IPTs,
and the contractors.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS The PMWG will manage the following:
Exercise program management
methods and oversight
Ensure the UH-60M system meets the
mission requirements
Ensure UH-60M compatibility with
other helicopter systems
Facilitate program communications
to all stakeholders
Ensure necessary interfaces are
established and are functional
Prioritize activities and resource
requirements
Ensure Risk Management Program is
being properly and effectively
implemented
Monitor IMS and EVMS for
performance anomalies and ensure
corrective action taken as necessary
Support Milestone Decision Authority
100
AUTHORITY The PMWG has complete authority to
direct the activities of the program as
well as serve as the final authority to
resolve questions or disputes.
ACCOUNTABILITY The PMWG is accountable to the UHPO
and PEO Aviation for the delivery of the
UH-60M system consistent with funding
and program.
PRODUCTS PMWG Charter
PRODUCTS APPROVAL
______________________ _______
Gov’t UH-60M PM Date
____________________ _______
Contractor UH-60M PM Date
TEAM COMPOSITION The PMWG is comprised of the UH-
60M PM and his/her Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation counterpart.
101
EXECUTIVE STEERING GROUP CHARTER
PURPOSE This group is responsible for program
oversight, direction, and providing
resources.
SCOPE OF WORK The ESC has the responsibility for
programmatic oversight of the UH-60M
development and production.
INTERFACES Communication between the members of
the Executive Steering Group is
maintained through weekly telecoms.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS This program integrates multiple
products managed by other Government
agencies and project offices. The UH-60
PM and his staff will continuously focus
their attention on implementing a
program to meet the user’s needs while
incorporating cost reduction initiatives
and work share arrangements as
appropriate.
AUTHORITY The UH-60 PO exercises programmatic,
technical, logistical, and financial control
of the UH-60M Modernization Program.
ACCOUNTABILITY The ESC is accountable to the User
community, the leadership within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and the Department of the Army.
PRODUCTS ESC Charter
PRODUCTS APPROVAL ____________________ _______
PEO Aviation Date
____________________ _______
Sikorsky AC PM Date
____________________ _______
UHPO Date
TEAM COMPOSITION Utility Helicopter PM

Program Executive Officer, Aviation
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
counterparts
102
ENGINEERING IPT CHARTER
PURPOSE The Engineering IPT will coordinate the
efforts of the Systems Engineering (SE)
sub-IPT, the Air Vehicle (AV) sub-IPT,
the Mission Equipment Package (MEP)
sub-IPT and the Integrated
Manufacturing (IM) sub-IPT to ensure
that the allocated design achieves a
system solution that meets spec and
schedule requirements of the contract.
SCOPE OF WORK The Engineering IPT will ensure that
aircraft delivered to test are built to
identified standards and are compliant
with product specifications.
The Chief Engineer also budgets the
funding for engineering support from
other government agencies supporting
the UH-60M Modernization Program
technical analyses to include
programmatic contract support.
INTERFACES The Chief Engineer’s counterpart within
the prime contractor’s organization has
similar responsibilities over the prime
contractor’s engineering staff and
provides subcontractors with technical
direction. The UH-60M Chief Engineer
coordinates with the chief engineers of
other government programs which
provide GFE to the UH-60M in order to
coordinate and resolve technical
interface issues and funding as
necessary.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS • Identify processes and standards for
systems integration.
• Set overall technical objective within
contract requirements, and assist sub-
IPTs in identifying intermediate goals
leading to the objective system.
• Ensure that each sub-IPT is properly
resourced to accomplish its goals.
• Provide timely flow of information to
coordinating and superior IPTs.
103
AUTHORITY The chief engineer interfaces with the
other IPT leads and has the final
approval authority over technical issues
within the UH-60M Modernization
Program .
ACCOUNTABILITY The Engineering IPT is led by the UH-
60M Chief Engineer who reports
directly to the UH-60M Product
Manager and Deputy Product Manager.
PRODUCTS
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Chief Engineer, UH-60M
Deputy PM, UH-60M
PM, UH-60M
TEAM COMPOSITION Chief Engineer, UH-60M
Sub-IPT Leads
AED
User Rep
104
Systems Engineering Sub-IPT Charter
PURPOSE The Systems Engineering sub-IPT
develops and executes an
interdisciplinary program plan to ensure
an integrated and life cycle balanced set
of system product and process solutions
to satisfy the warfighter’s requirements.
SCOPE OF WORK The work breakdown structure will
define which elements fall under the
direct responsibility of the SE IPT. As
listed in the RAM, these WBS elements
address air vehicle level analyses, test,
and integration activities that could not
be allocated or assigned to a specific
team such as Automatic Flight Control
or Fire Control.
INTERFACES The SE Team interfaces with all
program teams, the program
management team, and functional
management within the contractor team,
PM Office and the customer.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS • Executing and managing a
structured systems engineering
approach that provides a life cycle
balanced set of system product and
process solutions.
• Performing system requirements
analysis, managing changes to the
system requirements within contract
requirements, and tracking
achievement of the system
requirements.
• Facilitating the development and
completion of entrance and exit
criteria for major performance-
related program reviews (e.g. PDR,
CDR) as they relate to technical
issues.
• Conducting, in conjunction with
other IPTs, trade studies and
analyses that consider cost, schedule,
and performance as independent
variables.
• Conducting technical risk
105
assessments, developing mitigation
plans, and tracking technical risk
status
• Maintaining and updating the SEP so
that it remains a living document
that defines the technical aspects of
government and contractor
programmatic activities and
responsibilities. Metric development
evolves from the IPTs.
RESPONSIBILITIES The SE Team will manage coordinating
the delivery of a technically compliant
UH-60M on cost & schedule to the U.S.
Army for Initial Operational Test &
Evaluation.
AUTHORITY Within the contracted SOW, the SE
Team has the authority to affect the
technical decisions which:
1. Can’t reach a consensus within a
given IPT,
2. Affect more than a single IPT,
3. Cross organizational boundaries, or
4. Require air vehicle level trade offs to
be considered. The SE Team is a vehicle
to promote consensus between the
affected IPTs based on a systems level
review of available data. Carry forward
SE IPT decisions to the Project Office
for concurrence.
ACCOUNTABILITY The SE Sub-IPT lead will focus on
his/her respective technical areas and
report directly to the chief engineer.
PRODUCTS System Integration CDRLs, SE Charter
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Govt UH-60M PM
Contractor UH-60M PM
Govt Chief Engineer
Contractor Chief Engineer
SE IPT Lead
TEAM COMPOSITION Core Team Members:
• UH-60M Systems Engineer
• AED representative
• System engineering staff (as req’d)
• Contractor counterparts
106
Business Management (BM) IPT Charter
PURPOSE The BM IPT executes the administration for all
contractual and financial matters for the UH-60M
program.
SCOPE OF WORK The BM IPT will manage the Work Breakdown
Structure, Performance Measurement Baseline,
Earned Value Management System, procurement
management, program analysis and reporting along
with baseline cost estimates.
The BM IPT is also responsible for coordinating
legal matters with appropriate parties.
The BM IPT provides counsel and
recommendations to the OIPT as necessary.
INTERFACES The BM IPT interfaces with the Engineering IPT,
Logistics IPT, and Test IPT.
DESCRIPTION OF The BM IPT will manage the following:
TASKS Management of Milestone Requirements
documentation
Earned Value Management System
Action Items database
Personnel Rosters
Meeting Minutes
Program Library
Baseline Cost Estimates
Budgets
Historical Records of Funding and Program
Changes
Coordination of contract-related matters
Execution of the Integrated Baseline Review
Management of the Performance Measurement
Baseline
RESPONSIBILITIES The BM IPT will perform necessary program and

cost analyses along with program performance
reporting. Further, the BM IPT will work with the
IPTs to identify those WBS elements and/or cost
accounts which show variances to plan.
AUTHORITY The BM IPT has the authority to work with the
IPTs to ensure corrective actions are identified to
bring about improved performance in a timely
manner.
ACCOUNTABILITY The BM IPT is accountable to the PMWG
107
PRODUCTS CDRLs, Cost Performance Report (CPR), PMB,
CFSR, CARD, BM IPT Charter
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Program Manager
Contractor Program Manager
Govt Contractor
Govt Chief Engineer
SE IPT Lead
• Business Management IPT Lead
• Contractor Business Management IPT Lead
• Procuring Contracting Officer
• Program Analysts
• Cost Analysts
Associate Team Members:

• Business Management staff (as req’d)
• Technology staff (as req’d)
108
Test IPT Charter
PURPOSE To support the component and
subsystem qualification test effort for
the UH-60M weapons system by
coordinating with all IPTs on test issues;
and to manage the system level test
program.
SCOPE OF WORK Coordinate with segment IPTs on:
- Risk Reduction test
- Component qualification test
- Subsystem qualification test
- Systems bench test
- Live Fire test
Plan, conduct, and report on:
- Combined Test Team operations
- Aircraft flight test
- Government technical and operational
test
The Test IPT has primary responsibility
for the work contained in WBS X.X
INTERFACES The Test IPT interfaces with the system
design IPTs to establish test methods for
component and subsystem testing, and
to:
1. Establish system level test
requirements
2. Prioritize objectives necessary to
support aircraft qualification
3. Obtain feedback from IPTs in order
to evaluate and reprioritize goals to
deliver a safe, qualified aircraft.
The Test IPT interfaces with the Test

and Evaluation Working Level
Integrated Product Team (T&E WIPT)
to coordinate Government test
Requirements.
TEST IPT DESCRIPTION OF TASKS - Coordinate on qualification
requirements through coordination with
design IPTs and Government
qualification authorities.
- Coordinate on component qualification
test program
109
- Coordinate on component and
subsystem qualification test
requirements for vendor supplied items;
monitor subcontractor qualification
program
- Plan, conduct, and report on
subsystems bench testing
- Plan, conduct, and report on flight test
program
- Coordinate Government test activities
under the Combined Test Team
- Monitor test program status through
the Cost/Schedule Control System
Criteria
RESPONSIBILITIES The Test IPT will manage the conduct of
the system level test program. The
Government Test Coordinator and the
Assistant Product Manager for T&E are
responsible for the Government test
program and Combined Test Team
operations. The IPT will manage the
flight test program and coordinate effort
between the contractor and Government
testers.
AUTHORITY The Test IPT has authority over
resource allocation and scheduling of
flight test activities.
ACCOUNTABILITY The Test IPT is accountable to the
Product Management Overarching IPT
and the Government and company
Program Managers.
PRODUCTS The primary product of the Test IPT is a
fully qualified UH-60M Weapons
System. To this end, the Test IPT
produces system level qualification test
plans and test reports, test schedules and
budgetary reports.
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Govt Program Manager
Contractor Program Manager
Govt IPT Leader
Contractor IPT Leader
110
Logistics IPT Charter
PURPOSE The purpose of this Charter is to
establish and empower a UH-60M
Logistics Integrated Product Team.
SCOPE OF WORK The Logistics IPT will be empowered to
develop and implement a supportability
system which will ensure the UH-60M is
reliable, maintainable, and supportable
throughout its life cycle. The Logistics
IPT will integrate and coordinate with
other government offices and
contractors both vertically and
horizontally. The Logistics IPT will
interact, coordinate, and ensure a
working relation with the other
UH-60M IPTs and government and
contractor office of equal stature.
INTERFACES The Logistics IPT interfaces with all
program IPTs, program management
PMWG, contractor teams, DoD,
and the customer.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS The Logistics IPT will:
Ensure that aircraft is supportable when
delivered for testing and fielding.
Develop support requirements related to
readiness objectives, to design, and to
each other.
Integrate support considerations
effectively into the system and
equipment design
Identifying the most cost-effective
approach to supporting the system
Ensuring that the required support
structure elements are developed and
acquired.
Provide timely flow of information to
IPTs and the PMWG.
Ensure that the External Lift and Net
Ready KPPs are demonstrated and met.
RESPONSIBILITIES The Logistics IPT will develop,
implement and monitor execution of a
Supportability program to support
the UH-60M Program throughout the
111
life cycle.
A. IPT Leader:
a. Execution of the IPT Charter
b. Formation of the UH-60M-Logistics
IPT
c. Set meeting dates, locations and
milestones
d. Ensuring the IPT fosters an
atmosphere that promotes crossing
organizational boundaries and free flow
dialogue
e. Day to Day management of the IPT
process
f. conduct/host IPT meetings
g. Document decisions in minutes and
distribution of minutes to the
membership
h. Maintain IPT membership
i. Track and keep record of all action
items and assignments
B. IPT Members:
Shall meet as required to help plan,
program, structure, and
document/resolve issues.
a. Identify issues and parameters
b. Develop strategies and program
planning
c. Identify constraints and resources
d. Establish a plan of action and
milestones
e. Propose resolutions
f. Review and provide early input to
documents
g. Help in deciding roadmap/strategy
h. Assume responsibility to obtain
concurrence on issues
i. Provide recommendations to the
WIPT lead
j. Accepting tasking that require
research, writing, and/or briefing
k. Actively participating in the WIPT by
supporting and attending meetings
l. Completing assigned tasks on schedule
and providing results on issues
112
AUTHORITY Within the contracted SOW, the
Logistics Team has the authority to
affect the Logistics decisions which
a. Require resolution of conflicts of IPTs
b. Affect more than a single IPT,
c. Cross organizational boundaries, or
d. Require air vehicle level trade offs to
be considered.
The Logistics Team is a vehicle to
promote consensus between the affected
IPTs based on a systems level review of
available data.
Carry forward Logistics IPT decisions to
the Project Office for concurrence.
ACCOUNTABILITY The Supportability Team is accountable
to the program managers and Senior
Logisticians within the Govt and
contractor organizations
PRODUCTS A supportable system that includes the
following:
A. Maintenance Planning
a. Depot Maintenance Study
b. Level of Repair Analysis
c. Reliability predictions
d. Maintainability predictions
e. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality
Analysis
f. Failure Reports
g. Root cause failure analyses
h. Test plans
i. Test Reports
B. Supply Support
a. Provisioning Master Record
b. Authorized Stockage List/Prescribed
Load List
c. Replenishment Spares
d. Maintenance Allocation Chart
e. Government Furnished Equipment
(GFE) requirements list
f. GFE shortage list
C. Interactive Electronic Technical
Manual.
D. Training and Training Support
a. Training Course Program of
Instruction
113
b. Instructor and Key Personnel
Training
E. Training devices
a. T-BOS
b. Maintenance Training Device Suite
F. Computer resources and software
support
a. Maintenance Support Device
b. Diagnostic software
c. Automated Logbook
G. Transportability
a. Transportability Demonstration
b. Transportability kit
c. Component shipping containers
d. Package instructions
H. PBL
a. Core Depot Analysis
b. Business Case Analysis
c. Performance Based Agreements
d. Sources of Support
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Contractor Program Manager

Program Mgmt IPT Lead
Program Mgmt IPT Lead
Govt Contractor
Logistics IPT Lead
Logistics Staff
AMCOM IMMC
TSM
114
Integrated Manufacturing/Operations Sub-IPT Charter
PURPOSE
SCOPE OF WORK The Operations sub-IPT’s primary
purpose is to ensure that the product
being built is producible at the required
rate, identify production risks and
develop strategies to address risks.
INTERFACES The IM/O IPT interfaces with all
program IPTs, program management,
prime contractor, suppliers, Army
Environmental Center, AMCOM G-4,
Corrosion Prevention Action Team
(CPAT) .
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS • Manage the Process Modeling and
Simulation effort
• Develop and utilize capacity analysis
models
• Identification and management of
critical path production processes
parts critical to maintaining a
smooth production flow
• Validate requests for additional
tooling
Industrial Base issues
• Develop databases capturing
production costs and other
production data
• Evaluate long lead procurement
requirements
• Develop production cost estimates
• Conduct process proofing
• Conduct production surveillance
• Review hazardous material
management program plan progress
reports
115
• Update the Programmatic
Environmental, Safety and Health
Evaluation (PESHE)
• Develop and implement a Corrosion
Prevention and Control (CPC)
program
RESPONSIBILITIES
AUTHORITY The Integrated
Manufacturing/Operations Sub-IPT is
lead by the UH-60M Integrated
Manufacturing/Operations Lead and
derives the authority to make decisions
through empowerment from the UH-
60M Chief Engineer.
ACCOUNTABILITY The IM/O Team is accountable to the
Engineering IPT and to the program
managers and Chief Engineers within
the Govt and contractor organizations.
PRODUCTS • Updated Programmatic
Environmental, Safety and Health
Evaluation (PESHE)
• Corrosion Prevention and Control
(CPC) program
• Production cost estimates
• Databases capturing production costs
and other production data
• Capacity Models
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Govt Progam Mgmt IPT Lead
Contractor Program Mgmt IPT Lead
Govt Chief Engineer
Govt IM/O IPT
Contractor IM/O IPT Lead
TEAM COMPOSITION UH-60M Integrated
Manufacturing/Operations Lead
Contractor counterparts
116
Air Vehicle Sub-IPT Charter
PURPOSE The Air Vehicle (AV) Sub-IPT will
manage the performance and
operational requirements of the UH-
60M Utility Helicopter. The AV Team’s
purpose is to ensure aircraft subsystems
and components, shown on the WBS,
perform according to stated mission
requirements.
A main effort of the AV Team is to
ensure the Airframe, Propulsion system,
major computer hardware and
software items, and auxiliary systems
are fully capable of accomplishing the
UH-60M mission under the conditions
specified.
SCOPE OF WORK The UH-60M Work Breakdown
Structure lists the elements which fall
under the direct responsibility of the AV
Sub-IPT.
These elements include integration,
management, assembly, test and
checkout of AV subsystems and
components. Since the AV is
predominantly OTS/NDI, the
integration effort and associated testing
will be significant efforts for the IPT.
Hardware and software subject
matter expertise will be required. The
UH-60M Work Breakdown Structure
lists the elements which fall under the
direct responsibility of the AV Sub-IPT.
These elements include integration,
management, assembly, test and
checkout of AV subsystems and
components. Since the AV is
predominantly OTS/NDI, the integration
effort and associated testing will be
significant efforts for the IPT. Hardware
and software subject matter expertise
will be required.
INTERFACES The AV Team interfaces with the SE
IPT, Systems Engineering Team, the
117
program management team, and
functional management within the
contractor team, PM Office, and the
customer.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS The AV Team will ensure the
accomplishment of the KPPs
including:
• IR Survivability
• HOGE, Endurance and Range
• Net-Ready
Through analysis and participation in
demonstration, testing, production and
operation of the following subsystems
and components:
Airframe
Propulsion
Application and System Software
Communications/Identification Systems
Navigation and Guidance
Central Computer
Fire Control
Data Displays and Controls
Survivability Systems
Reconnaissance
Automatic Flight Control
Central Integrated Checkout
Armament
Weapons Delivery
Auxiliary Equipment
RESPONSIBILITIES • Coordinating the performance and
operational qualification of a mission
capable UH-60M.
• Developing and integrating all
components of the aircraft to include
airframe, mission computers,
avionics, navigation,
communications, mission critical
software, propulsion, and flight
control systems.
• Chairing the Simulation Based
Acquisition Team, evaluating and
recommending alternative design
concepts via in-house simulation and
supporting the SE sub-IPT trade
118
studies.
• Validating the technical baseline
• Developing, in conjunction with
other IPTs, ECPs to support
modifications.
AUTHORITY Within the contracted SOW, the AV
Team has the authority to affect the
technical decisions which relate to
the KPPs and other operational factors.
The Air Vehicle Sub-IPT is lead by UH-
60M Air Vehicle Lead Engineer and
derives the authority to make decisions
through empowerment from the UH-
60M Chief Engineer.
The AV Sub-IPT will carry forward
decisions to the SE IPT for concurrence
and integration.
ACCOUNTABILITY The AV Team is accountable to the
Engineering IPT and to the program
managers and Chief Engineers within
the Govt and contractor organizations.
PRODUCTS Air Vehicle Analyses, Qualification
Reports
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Govt Progam Mgmt IPT Lead
Contractor Program Mgmt IPT Lead
Govt Chief Engineer
Govt AV IPT
Contractor AV IPT Lead
• Systems Engineering Manager
• Engineering Operations Manager
• Technology managers
• Other IPT leaders
• Business Operations team
representative
• Contracting Representative
• Business Manager (as req’d)
• Technology staff (as req’d)
119
Mission Equipment Packages Sub-IPT Charter
PURPOSE Integrate all MEP elements, both
hardware and software, of the mission
equipment package for the UH-60M
Helicopter. Accomplish the Mission
Equipment Package assigned tasks
within the allocated budget and meet
requirements.
SCOPE OF WORK Manage the integration and checkout of
Non Developmental Item MEP to
include the following equipment types:
Communication, Improved Data
Modem, Navigation (EGI, VOR/ILS,
TACAN), Identification Friend or Foe
(IFF), Controls and Displays,
Aircraft Survivability Equipment,
MEP Mission Computers and Data
Busses.
In addition, any MEP software
development, Information
Assurance Strategy efforts, and Net
Ready requirements efforts.
INTERFACES The MEP IPT interfaces with other
IPTs, contractors, TSM, AED, and on-
sight DCMA as needed.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS Identify, track, resolve risks and areas of
concern. Identify and implement
processes and metrics. Develop and
track MEP schedules. Perform
integration and test of MEP in the
laboratory. Assess MEP performance.
Participate in integration, check-out,
functionals (acceptance tests) and
demonstrations of the MEP when
installed on the aircraft. Status program
management. Coordinate
interoperability risk reduction,
standards conformance, and
certifications (e.g., CTSF and JITC).
RESPONSIBILITIES Covered in other sections of this charter.
AUTHORITY Schedule Control
Risk Management
Interface Management
120
Resolve Technical Disputes
ACCOUNTABILITY Sub-IPT leads focus on their respective
technical areas and report directly to the
chief engineer.
PRODUCTS Integrated MEP hardware and software
AMPS Interface to UH-60M
DATA
PEPS
ICDS
IFMs
PRODUCTS APPROVAL Engineering IPT Lead
TEAM COMPOSITION Leads for Comm/Nav/IFF/C&D/ASE
Logistics
AED
Test/Flight Test *
Contracts*
* As Needed
121
Attachment 3. Work Breakdown Structure
WBS WBS Element Title IPT Responsible

Element#
1.0 UH-60M
1.1 AIR VEHICLE AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1 AIRFRAME AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1 FUSELAGE AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.1 NOSE SECTION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.1.1 NOSE SECTION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.2 MID FUSELAGE AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.3 AFT FUSELAGE (TRANSITION) AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.4 MAIN ROTOR PYLON AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.1.5 TAILCONE AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.6 TAIL ROTOR PYLON AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.7 STABILATOR AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.B AF AIRCRAFT 5-8 AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.1.C AV AIRCRAFT 5-8 AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.2 LANDING GEAR AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.2.1 MAIN LANDING GEAR AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.2.2 TAIL LANDING GEAR AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3 TRANSMISSION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3.1 MAIN GEAR BOX AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3.2 INTERMEDIATE GEAR BOX AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3.3 TAIL GEAR BOX AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3.4 SHAFTING (TRANSMISSION) AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.3.5 TRANSMISSION ACCESSORIES AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.4 LIFE SUPPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.4.1 AIR COND/HEAT/VENT/DUCTING AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.4.2 N/A
1.1.1.4.3 CABIN FURNISHINGS AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.4.3.1 CABIN FURNISHINGS AV Sub-IPT
122
Element#
1.1.1.4.4 COCKPIT FURNISHINGS AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.4.5 SOUND PROOFING AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.4.6 AVIONICS SYSTEMS COOLING AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.4.7 OBOGS (Q only) AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.5 FLIGHT CONTROLS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.5.1 MECHANICAL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.5.2 HYDRAULIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.5.3 SERVO SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.6 SECONDARY POWER SYSTEMS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.6.1 AUXILIARY POWER UNIT AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.6.2 HYDRAULIC POWER SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.6.3 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.6.3.1 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.6.3.3 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.7 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.7.1 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DESIGN AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.7.2 ELECTRICAL HARNESS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.7.3 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.8 HOIST/CARGO SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.8.1 CARGO SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.8.2 RESCUE HOIST AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9 PROPULSION SYSTEMS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.1 AIR INDUCTION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.2 FUEL SYSTEM (Includes ESSS fixed AV Sub-IPT
provisions)
1.1.1.9.3 EXHAUST SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.4 INFRARED SUPRESSION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.5 START SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.6 ENGINE MOUNTS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.7 COWLING/WORK PLATFORM AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.9.8 ENGINE CONTROLS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.9.9 FIRE PROTECTION AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.A ROTOR SYSTEMS AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.A.1 MAIN ROTOR BLADES AV Sub-IPT
1.1.1.A.2 MAIN ROTOR HEAD AV Sub-IPT
123
Element#
1.1.1.A.3 TAIL ROTOR HEAD AND BLADES AV Sub-IPT

1.1.1.A.4 ROTOR DE-ICE SYSTEM AV Sub-IPT
1.1.2 COMMUNICATIONS/IDENTIFICATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.1 INTERCOM MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.2 RADIO SYSTEMS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.3 IFF TRANSPONDER MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.4 COMMUNICATION SECURITY MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.5 IMPROVED DATUM MODEM (IDM) MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.6 VHF-FM RADIO MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.7 UHF-AM RADIO MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.8 HF RADIO MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.9 VHF-AM RADIO MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.2.A EMERGENCY CONTROL PANEL MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3 NAVIGATION / GUIDANCE MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.1 RADAR/ADC NAVIGATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.1.1 RADAR NAVIGATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.1.2 RADAR NAVIGATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.2 TACAN NAVIGATION SET MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.3 VORS/ILS CIVIL NAVIGATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.4 ELECTRONIC ALTIMETER SET MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.3.5 INS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.6 STORMSCOPE MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.3.7 LOW FREQ AUTO DIRECTION FINDER MEP Sub-IPT
SYSTEM
1.1.3.8 PERSONNEL LOCATOR SYSTEM (Q Variant MEP Sub-IPT
Only)
1.1.3.9 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.4 AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.4.1 AFCS AVIONICS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.4.1.1 AFCS AVIONICS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.4.2 AFCS SERVOS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5 SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.1 ELECTRONIC SUPPORT MEASURES MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.2 ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.3 RADAR JAMMER MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.4 COUNTERMEASURES DISPENSER MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.4.1 CHAFF MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.4.2 FLARE MEP Sub-IPT
124
Element#
1.1.5.5 N/A MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.5.6 RADAR WARNING RECEIVER MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.7 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.8 LASER WARNING RECEIVER MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.9 MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.5.A EO IMAGING SENSORS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6 DATA DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.1 MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.6.1.1 MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.1.2 MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY CONTROL MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.2 CONTROL DISPLAY UNIT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.3 DATA CONCENTRATOR UNIT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.3.1 DATA CONCENTRATOR UNIT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.4 DATA TRANSFER SYSTEM MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.5 MULTIFUNCTION SLEW CONTROLLER MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.6.6 ANVIS HUD MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.7 FLIR (MEDEVAC only) MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.6.8 FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTROLS MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.7 ARMAMENT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.8 AUXILLARY EQUIPMENT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.8.1 COMMON ANTENNA MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.8.2 COMMON CONTROL BOXES MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.9 INTEGRATION/ASSY/TEST/CHECKOUT MEP Sub-IPT
1.1.9.1 INTEGRATION/ASSY/TEST/CHECKOUT MEP Sub-IPT

GOVT SIL
125
Element#
1.1.9.B INTEGRATION/ASSY/TEST/CHECKOUT MEP Sub-IPT

1.1.9.B.1 INTEGRATION/ASSY/TEST/CHECKOUT A/C MEP Sub-IPT
#5
#6
#7
#8
1.1.9.B.5 TROY ME SUSTAINING/ODC AV Sub-IPT
1.1.9.B.6 EWLS PLANNING AV Sub-IPT
1.1.A PROPULSION - GFE ENGINE AV Sub-IPT
1.1.B AIR VEHICLE APPLICATION SOFTWARE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1 MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY SOFTWARE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.1 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.2 DIGITAL MESSAGING MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.3 PRIMARY FLIGHT/EICAS DISPLAYS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.4 DIGITAL MAP MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.5 SUBSYSTEM BIT STATUS DISPLAY MEP Sub IPT

1.1.B.1.6 FUEL MANAGEMENT DISPLAY MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.7 IDM CONTROL MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.8 FLIGHT PLAN DISPLAY (inc. drag 'n drop) MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.9 SLEW CONTROLLER INTERFACE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.A OTHER SMI MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.B DTS SYSTEM CONTROL/BIT MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.1.C OTHER MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2 CONTROL DISPLAY UNIT SOFTWARE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.1 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.1.1 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.2 DIGITAL MESSAGING MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.3 FUEL MANAGEMENT DISPLAY MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.4 IDM CONTROL MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.5 FLIGHT MEP Sub IPT
PLAN/WAYPOINT/STOREPOINT/OBSTACLE
1.1.B.2.6 HF RADIO CONTROL MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.7 NAVIGATION (UTM, ETC) MEP Sub IPT

1.1.B.2.8 FLIR CONTROL AND INTEGRATION (Q only) MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.9 PLS CONTROL AND INTEGRATION (Q only) MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.2.A MISSION PLANNING SYSTEM INTERFACE MEP Sub IPT
126
Element#
1.1.B.2.B OTHER MEP Sub IPT

1.1.B.3 DATA CONCENTRATOR UNIT SOFTWARE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.3.1 CAUTION/ADVISORY MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.3.2 ENGINE INSTRUMENTS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.B.3.3 PRIMARY FLIGHT MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C AIR VEHICLE SYSTEM SOFTWARE MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1 MULTIFUNCTION DISPLAY MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.1 ARINC BUS DRIVER API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.2 ETHERNET (TCP/IP) BUS DRIVER API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.3 WINDOWING/MENUING APIs MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.4 MISC. APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMING MEP Sub IPT
INTERFACES
1.1.C.1.5 SCSI DRIVER API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.6 SLEW CONTROLLER API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.1.7 DIGITAL MAP APIs MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.2 CONTROL DISPLAY UNIT MEP Sub IPT

INTERFACES
1.1.C.2.2 SCREENS BUILDER API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.2.3 KEYBOARD API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.C.3 DATA CONCENTRATOR UNIT MEP Sub IPT

INTERFACES
1.1.C.3.2 ARINC API MEP Sub IPT
1.1.D AIRCRAFT DATA RECORDERS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.D.1 FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.D.2 COCKPIT VOICE DATA RECORDER MEP Sub IPT
1.1.D.3 HUMS MEP Sub IPT
1.1.E NON-RECURRING AVIONICS SYS MEP Sub IPT
INTEGRATION
1.1.E.1 SOFTWARE INTEGRATION LABORATORY MEP Sub IPT
1.1.E.2 DESKTOP PVI EMULATION MEP Sub IPT
1.1.F AIRCRAFT UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE Logistics IPT
ACTIONS
1.1.F.B.1 AIRCRAFT UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE Logistics IPT
127
Element#
1.2 TRAINING Logistics IPT

1.2.1 EQUIPMENT Logistics IPT
1.2.2 SERVICES Logistics IPT
1.2.3 FACILITIES Logistics IPT
1.2.4 TRAINING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Logistics IPT
1.2.4.5 TRAINING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Logistics IPT
1.2.5 TRAINING COURSEWARE Logistics IPT
1.2.6 TRAINING - CONDUCT OF CLASSES Logistics IPT
1.3 DATA SE Sub-IPT
1.3.1 ENGINEERING DATA SE Sub-IPT
1.3.2 MANAGEMENT DATA SE Sub-IPT
1.3.3 SUPPORT DATA SE Sub-IPT
1.3.4 DATA REPOSITORY SE Sub-IPT
1.4 SYSTEM TEST & EVALUATION Test IPT

1.4.1 EARLY USER DEMONSTRATION SUPPORT Test IPT
1.4.2 DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION Test IPT
1.4.2.1 TEST PLANNING Test IPT
1.4.2.2 GROUND TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.2.1 COMPONENT GROUND TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.2.2 SYSTEM GROUND TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.2.2.1 SYSTEM GROUND TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.2.3 SIMULATION Test IPT
1.4.2.2.4 SOFTWARE INTEGRATION LABORATORY Test IPT
1.4.2.3 FLIGHT TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.3.1 AIRCRAFT #1 FLIGHT TEST Test IPT
1.4.2.3.5 AIRCRAFT INSTRUMENTATION Test IPT
1.4.2.3.6 IN-FLIGHT ICING TEST (SUPPORT) Test IPT
1.4.2.4 SOFTWARE QUALIFICATION TEST Test IPT
1.4.3 OPERATIONAL TEST AND SUPPORT Test IPT
1.4.3.1 TECH/MAINT SERVICE Test IPT
1.4.3.2 EMV/EMC TEST Test IPT
1.4.3.3 PRODUCTION QUALIFICATION TEST - Test IPT
GOV'T (PQT-G)
1.4.3.4 PRELIMINARY AIRWORTHINESS Test IPT
EVALUATION (PAE)
1.4.3.5 AIRWORTHINESS AND FLIGHT Test IPT
CHARACTERISTICS (A&FC)
128
Element#
1.4.3.6 CENTRAL TECH SUPPORT FACILITY (CTSF) Test IPT

INTEROP TEST
1.4.3.7 OPERATION TEST (OT) Test IPT
1.4.3.8 GOVERNMENT SIL Test IPT
1.4.3.9 LIVE FIRE TESTING Test IPT
1.4.4 MOCK-UPS Test IPT
1.4.5 TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT Test IPT
1.4.6 TEST FACILITIES Test IPT
1.5 SYSTEM ENGINEERING / MANAGEMENT SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.01.03.01 AIR WARRIOR PLANNING SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.1 PROGRAM MGMT PMWG
1.5.1.1 INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN / SEMP PMWG
1.5.1.2 N/A
1.5.1.3 DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULES PMWG
1.5.1.4 WBS PMWG
1.5.1.5 PROGRESS REVIEWS, PMO COORDINATION PMWG
1.5.1.6 FINANCIAL CONTROL PMWG
1.5.1.7 DATA MANAGEMENT PMWG
1.5.1.8 PROGRAM TRAVEL PMWG
1.5.1.9 ACAs PMWG
1.5.1.A ECP PREPARATION PMWG
1.5.1.B PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/BUSINESS AC 5- PMWG
8
1.5.1.B.1 DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULES PMWG
1.5.1.B.2 FINANCIAL CONTROL PMWG
1.5.1.B.3 PROGRESS REVIEWS, PMO COORDINATION PMWG
1.5.2 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1 ANALYTICAL INTEGRATION SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.1 MASS PROPERTIES SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.2 AERODYNAMICS SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.3 LOADS & CRITERIA SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.4 HANDLING QUALITIES SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.5 ACOUSTICS SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.6 MATERIAL DESIGN PROPERTIES SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.7 DYNAMICS SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.8 LOW OBSERVABLES SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.9 STRUCTURE INTEGRITY SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.A RAM / DTOSC ENG SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.B MANPRINT (HUMAN FACTORS ENG) SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.B.1 HUMAN FACTOR ENGINEERING(HFE)- SE-Sub-IPT
MANPRINT
129
Element#
1.5.2.1.C SYSTEM SAFETY SE-Sub-IPT

1.5.2.1.D ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATABILITY MEP Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.E SURVIVABILITY SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.F DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRATION MEP Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.G ELECTRONIC MOCKUP (DMU) SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.H DTC/DTOSC/LCC SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.I MODELING AND SIMULATION VVA MEP Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.J GFE QUAL EVALUATION Logistics IPT
1.5.2.1.M SYSTEM ENGINEERING SPT AIRCRAFT 5-8 SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.1.N SYSTEM ENGINEERING ATTRIBUTES SPT SE-Sub-IPT
AIRCRAFT 5-8
1.5.2.2 REQUIREMENTS ALLOCATION & SE-Sub-IPT
TRACEABILITY
1.5.2.2.1 REQUIREMENTS ALLOCATION & SE-Sub-IPT
TRACEABILITY
TRACEABILITY
TRACEABILITY
1.5.2.3 TRADE STUDIES ANALYSIS SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.4 TECH PERF MEASURE TRACKING SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.5 MINIMUM COMMONALITY BASELINE SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.2.6 CAIV Business IPT
1.5.2.7 RISK MANAGEMENT SE-Sub-IPT
1.5.3 INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING IM/Operations
Sub-IPT
1.5.3.1 MANUFACTURING PLANNING AND IM/Operations
CONTROL Sub-IPT
1.5.3.1.1 MANUFACTURING PLANNING AND IM/Operations
CONTROL Sub-IPT
1.5.3.1.2 MANUFACTURING PLANNING AND IM/Operations
CONTROL Sub-IPT
1.5.3.2 PROCESS VALIDATIONS IM/Operations
Sub-IPT
1.5.3.3 PRODUCTION RISK ASSESSMENTS IM/Operations
Sub-IPT
1.5.3.4 TOOLING IM/Operations
Sub-IPT
1.5.3.5 QUALITY ENGINEERING IM/Operations
Sub-IPT
1.5.3.6 CORROSION PREVENTION & CONTROL IM/Operations
PROGRAM Sub-IPT
1.5.3.7 SAFETY PROGRAM SSWG
1.5.3.8 FLIGHT SAFETY PARTS PROGRAM SE Sub-IPT
1.5.3.9 ENVIR / HAZ MATERIAL MGMT IM Sub-IPT
1.5.3.A CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT CM IPT
130
Element#
1.5.3.B MANUFACTURING PLANNING AND IM Sub-IPT

CONTROL
1.6 LOGISTICS Logistics IPT
1.6.1 PROVISIONING REQUIREMENTS Logistics IPT
DETERMINATION
1.6.2 PACKAGING HANDLING AND STORAGE Logistics IPT
Requirement
Traceability
Shaded 1.6.3 TRANSPORTABILITY Logistics IPT
areas 1.6.4 INTEGRATED LOGISTIC SUPPORT Logistics IPT
indicate MANAGEMENT
CAMS 6.4.B INTEGRATED LOGISTIC SUPPORT Logistics IPT
MANAGEMENT
1.6.5 LOG MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Logistics IPT
1.6.5.1 DESIGN CHANGE NOTICE Logistics IPT
1.6.6 TECH PUBS Logistics IPT
1.6.6.1 AMCOM MANAGED TECH PUBS Logistics IPT
1.6.6.2 CECOM MANAGED TECH PUBS Logistics IPT
1.6.7 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT Logistics IPT
1.6.7.1 TMD&E Logistics IPT
1.6.7.2 PECULIAR GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT Logistics IPT
1.6.8 SYSTEM SUPPORT PACKAGE Logistics IPT
1.6.8.1 SSP COMPONENT LIST Logistics IPT
1.6.8.2 SSP MATERIAL Logistics IPT
1.6.9 DEPOT STUDY Logistics IPT
1.6.9.1 DEPOT STUDY Logistics IPT
1.7 AIRCRAFT KITS AV Sub-IPT
1.7.1 WINTERIZATION KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.2 AEROMEDICAL EVAC KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.3 BLACKOUT KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.4 AIR TRANSPORT KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.5 WIRE STRIKE KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.6 RESCUE HOIST KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.7 ESSS REMOVABLE PROV KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.8 AUX CABIN HEATER KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.9 NVG KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.A APU IPS AV Sub-IPT
1.7.B MAIN ENGIN IPS AV Sub-IPT
1.7.C A/C RECOVERY KIT AV Sub-IPT
1.7.D FLYAWAY EQUIPMENT KIT AV Sub-IPT
131
Attachment 4. Critical Technical Parameters (CTP)
Supported Operational Critical Technical Parameter Development UH-60M Threshold Decision

Requirement Stage Event Value Supported
Internal Lift Capability (Normal Flight) BMC with 11 combat troops @ 290 lbs. each. CTT
(ORD 4.a.1.a) 4000 feet Pressure Altitude (PA) / 95 degrees F 200 Kilometers combat radius with MS C
Level Flight. With airspeed 145 KTAS using MCP 20 minute fuel reserve at MS C.
500 fpm VROC from HOGE using 95% of
MRP. With Single Engine Inoperative (SEI), 100 225 Kilometers Combat Radius with FRP Decision
KTS and 100 fpm VROC at Intermediate rated 20 minute fuel reserve at FRP Review
power (IPR). Decision Review.
KPP BMC with 4500 lbs. ext. load CTT Combat radius of 135 Kilometers MS C
External Lift Capability: 4000 feet PA / 95 degrees F with 20-minute fuel reserve.
(ORD 4.a.1.c) 200 fpm VROC from HOGE @ 0 Airspeed. FRP Decision
Review
Endurance Flight Time C2 Mission Configuration CTT Fly 4.0 hours, takeoff to landing,
(ORD 4.a.1.b) 2000 feet PA / 70 degrees F with 20 minute fuel reserve @ FRP Decision
200 fpm VROC from HOGE @ 0 Airspeed. Velocity Best Endurance (Vbe). Review
Digital Mission Management – Data AMPS Compatibility CTT Send and Receive 600 Mbytes data FRP Decision
Transfer System Comm/Nav/ASE/MEP Interface for automated at a rate of 1.0 Megahertz. Review
(ORD 4.a.2.c data input.
132
Supported Operational Critical Technical Parameter Development UH-60M Decision
Requirement Stage Event Threshold value Supported
Situational Awareness Tactical digital map capability CTT Digitized moving map IAW MIL- FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.2.g) PRF-101299. Review
Situational Awareness Mission Information through JVMF messaging CTT Receive, transmit, and display FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.2.b) JVMF Message Information. Review
Situational Awareness Storm Detection and severe weather avoidance CTT Thunderstorm detection display and FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.i.2) weather mapping (airborne or Review
ground).
KPP Interoperability growth IAW JTA Army and DoD CTT Open digital architecture IAW JTA MS C
Avionics Army and DOD. Growth to
(ORD 4.b Receive and Transmit Required FRP Decision
JVMF messages. Critical IERs Review
must be met.
Avionics Flight Control handling qualities IAW ADS-33 CTT Level I Handling Qualities IAW FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.2.i.1) ADS-33 (Non DVE). Review
Avionics Navigate within 10.5m vertical, 8.7m horiz, CTT Accuracy: FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.2.h) 1.16 mils Directional accuracy Vertical: 10.5 m (5 m CEP). Review
Horiz: 8.7 m (3 m LEP). Dir: 1.
16 mils (0.4 mil LEP).
Mission Equipment Night Vision Compatibility IAW MIL-L-8762A CTT Compliant w/ MIL-L-8762A for FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a..3) Class A. Luminance of 1.0 +/- 0.5 Review
footlamberts.
133
Supported Operational Critical Technical Development UH-60M Decision
Requirement Parameter Stage Event Threshold value Supported
FLIR Performance IAW UH-60Q specifications CTT No degradation from demonstrated FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.2.c) UH-60Q detection capability. Review
Software Maturity & Quality a. Computer Resource Utilization CTT a. 50 % FRP Decision
(ORD 5.d) b. Requirements Stability b. 75 % Review
c. Design Stability c. 75 %
KPP Interoperability requirements for communications CTT Receive and Transmit: MS C

Communications: suite a. HF Voice and data.
(ORD 4.a.2.f) b. UHF-AM Voice and data. FRP Decision
c. VHF-FM Voice and data. Review
d. VHF-AM Voice only.
e. IDM integration IAW MD-
1295A, ver 5, A.
Critical IERs must be met IAW
ORD par.4.b
Survivability Ballistic protection LFT&E Provide Protection to 7.62 mm. FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.5.c) Review
Survivability IR Signature Reduction CTT Maintain UH-60L Signature. FRP Decision

(ORD 4.a.5.a) Review
E3 Performance E3 compliance CTT EMV/EMC/EMI/HERO to ADS- FRP Decision

(ORD 4.a.5.b.2) 37A. Review
134
Supported Operational Critical Technical Development UH-60M Decision
Requirement Parameter Stage Event Threshold value Supported
Transportability Meet UH-60L airlift requirements CTT 6 Aircraft in C-5; 3 in C-17. FRP Decision
(ORD 4.a.4) Review
a. Detect and record all error data

Integrated Diagnostics a. Demonstrate in – Flight BIT CTT non-interference with other A/C
(ORD 4.a.5.a) functions. FRP Decision
Review
b. Demonstrate Start – Up BIT b. Detect, store, and record within
5 minutes of avionics power-on.
95% fault detection and isolation,
no more than 5%
false alarms.
c. Run upon command from either

c. Demonstrate Initiated BIT pilot station. 95% fault detection /
isolation, no more than 5% false
alarms.
Reliability & Maintainability (ORD 4.a.6) MTBEMA CTT MTBEMA 3.5 Flt Hours (Point MS C
Estimate, See Table II.2)
Reliability & Maintainability a. MTBMA => 40 Flt Hours CTT/IOT MTBMA => 40 Flt Hours (Point
(ORD 4.a.6) b. MTBMAF => 15 Flt Hours Estimate) FRP Decision
c. MTBEMA => 3.7 Flt Hours MTBMAF => 15 Flt Hours (Point Review
d. Total MR =< 5.4 MMH/FH Estimate)
e. Unschd MR =< 2.1 MMH/FH MTBEMA => 3.7 Flt Hours
(Point Estimate)
Total MR =< 5.4 MMH/FH
Unschd MR =< 2.1 MMH/FH
135
Attachment 5. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)
Operational ORD
Parameter ORD Threshold ORD Objective
Requirement Reference
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Mission Capabilities:
a) Troop Movement a) Internal Lift at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: 11 Combat a) Internal Lift at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: 11 ORD 4.a.1.a
Troops @ 290 lbs. each. Combat Radius: 225 km, 20- Combat Troops @ 290 lbs. each. Combat Radius:
min fuel reserve. 500 km, 20-min fuel reserve.
b) External lift b) External Lift (KPP) at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: 4500 b) External Lift (KPP) at 4,000 feet, 95 degrees F: ORD 4.a.1.c
lbs. Combat Radius: 135 km (73 nm) plus 20-minute 10000 lbs. Combat Radius: 275 km (148 nm) plus
fuel reserve. (KPP) 20-min fuel reserve.
c) Command and Control c) With a C2 Mission Equipment Package (1800 lbs. c) Same as threshold, except at 4,000 feet, 95 ORD 4.a.1.b
Max GW), five passengers at 245 lbs. each, endurance degrees F: 5.0 hours plus 20 minute fuel reserve.
with ERFS at 2,000 feet, 70 degrees F: 4.0 hours plus
20 minute fuel reserve.
Avionics
a) Architecture a) Open architecture digital avionics system IAW Army a) Same as threshold. ORD 4.a.2.a
and DOD JTA and Global Air Traffic Management
(GATM) Capstone requirements II.
b) Cockpit management system b). Simultaneous digital display of tactical situational b). Integrated digital cockpit management system: ORD 4.a.2.b
awareness and aircraft system status. Receive, display, simultaneous display of primary flight systems:
and transmit JVMF messages and caution advisory aircraft system status and tactical situational
annunciation. awareness. Receive, display, and transmit, JVMF
messages, aircraft systems malfunction analysis
and emergency action procedures.
c) Communications c) Transmit and receive in jam resistant, secure (and c) Same a threshold plus capability to transmit ORD 4.a.2.f
non-secure), and joint service compatible modes of and receive with satellite communications.
communication, voice and data.
- VHF-FM
- UHF-AM
- HF
- VHF-AM (voice only)
d) Situational awareness d) Display of situational awareness picture through a d) Threshold requirement plus voice synthesized ORD 4.a.2.b
digitized, moving map. Support growth for transmit and JVMF messaging.
receive connectivity IAW ABCS requirements.
136
Measures of Effectiveness and Suitability (MOE/S) (continued)
Operational ORD
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Avionics (Continued):
d) Navigation d) Global system with precision accuracy for d) Same as threshold plus distance measuring ORD 4.a.2.h
tactical navigation (land and over-water). Meets system for instrument approaches.
military requirements for operations in civil VFR
and IFR. Secondary Backup independent of
ground or space based components.
e) Flight Handling e) Non-Degraded Visual Environment (DVE), e) Same as threshold. Threshold requirements plus ORD 4.a.2.i.1
flying qualities optimized for minimal pilot in DVE. (Level 1 IAW ADS-33).
workload. (Level 1 IAW ADS-33).
f) Mission Management f) Same as threshold, plus integrated on-board ORD 4.a.2.j

f) AMPS compatible mission automated aircraft performance planning and load-
management system for receiving sensing system.
mission information.
Night Vision Same as threshold, plus inclusion of a lightweight ORD 4.a.3
Electro-optical infrared imaging system optimized
Night Vision Device (NVD) compatible. Search for pilotage.
light operations without mission interruption.
Heads up display with integrated digital pilotage
symbology. (AN/AVS-6 and AN/AVS-7, Class A
Deployability Goggles).
a) Self-deployability a) Same as threshold except to 1260 nm. ORD 4.a.4.a
b) Air transportability a) Self deployment to 1,056 nm. b) Same as threshold requirement plus folding ORD 4.a.4.b
components.
b) Air transport of minimum of 6 UH-60M aircraft
c) Sea transportability in one C-5 and 3 per C-17. c) same as threshold. ORD 4.a.4.c
c) Capable of being transported by Naval vessel as

listed in FM 1-564. Installation of rotor brake.
137
ORD
Operational
Parameter ORD Threshold ORD Objective Referenc
Requirement
e
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE System Survivability:
a) Susceptibility Reduction a) Existing UH-60L system of IR signature a) Same as threshold, plus reduced acoustic, and ORD 4.a.5.a
reduction and active/passive CM systems. radar cross section signatures.
b) System Hardening b) Ballistic protection to 7.62 mm. Operate after b) Same as threshold, plus to 14.5 mm. Also ORD 4.a.5.b
encountering NBC contaminates and operable in hardening to high power microwave directed
MOPP IV gear. energy weapons and lasers
c) Self Protection c) Two (7.62 mm) machine guns with laser aiming c) Same as threshold except structural capability ORD 4.a.5.c
device. for 12.7 mm gun.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Reliability a) MTBMA =>40 flight hours. a) MTBMA => 56 flight hours. ORD 4.a.6
b) MTBMAF => 15 flight hours. b) MTBMAF => 21 flight hours.
c) MTBEMA => 3.7 flight hours. c) MTBEMA = > 5.2 flight hours.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE Interoperability Meet 100% of the critical Top Level Information Meet 100% of all Top Level Information Exchange ORD 4.b
Exchange Requirements (KPP) (ORD 4.b). Requirements. (KPP)
138
Operational ORD
LOGISTICS & READINESS Logistics Existing Army Maintenance Program with the Same as threshold. ORD 4.c.1
GCSS-A System and Class 1 Interactive
Electronic Technical Manual (IETM).
Maintainability a) Total MR no more than 5.4 Maintenance Man- a) Total MR not more than 4.6 MMH/FH. ORD 4.c.2
hours per flight hour (MMH/FH).
b) Unscheduled MR no more than 2.1 MMH/FH. b) Unscheduled MR not more than 1.3 MMH/FH. ORD 4.c.2
OTHER SYSTEM Shipboard compatibility U.S. Navy surface ship compatibility. Same as threshold. ORD 4.d.2
CHARACTERISTICS Installation of rotor brake. Compatible with
Navy ship refueling capabilities.
CEFS Installation/removal shall not exceed an elapsed Same as threshold, plus: non-pressurized tank with ORD 4.d.1
time of 2 hours. Ballistically tolerant to 7. capability to accept a nitrogen inert system, automatic
62mm. capability to avoid fuel quantity that could exceed
lateral CG limitations. Ballistically tolerant to
14.5mm.
Worldwide electromagnetic Operation in worldwide electromagnetic Same as threshold. ORD 4.d.9

environment environment without adverse affect to flight
essential functions and compliance with HERO
safety standards.
139
Attachment 6. Trade Study Decisions
Risk
Risk Reduction
Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Implemented
Implemented via
via IQ
IQ Baseline
Baseline
Initial Current
Baseline
Incorporated 4 MFDs
via contract mod
X
Incorporated ESIS
X
Incorporated Fully
Coupled Flight Controller
X
140
Risk
Risk Reduction
Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Studies
Implemented
Implemented via
via IQ
IQ Baseline
Baseline (cont.)
(cont.)
Initial Current
Baseline
Removing Pitch Rate

Gyro
X
141
Risk
Risk Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Studies
Implemented
Implemented via IQ
IQ Baseline
Baseline (cont.)
(cont.)
Initial Current
Baseline
Dual 5 amp
SLAB
Incorporated
AVR-2b via contract
mod
Incorporated
X IHIRSS via contract
mod
142
Risk
Risk Reduction
Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Studies
Implemented via IQ Baseline (cont.)
(cont.)
Initial Current
Baseline
Considering
IVHMS
Incorporating
CEFS
X
Incorporating
Digital ICS
143
Risk
Risk Reduction
Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Studies
Implemented
Implemented via
via IQ Baseline (cont.)
Initial Current
Baseline
Incorporating
APX-118
X
Folding Composite
Stabliator
X
As req
144
Risk
Risk Reduction
Reduction Trade
Trade Studies
Studies
Implemented
Implemented via IQ Baseline (cont.)
Initial Current
Baseline
145
IQ
IQ Trade
Trade Studies
Studies Evaluated & Implemented
Implemented
Study IQ Implementation
IQ1: T700-GE-701D •T700-GE-701D
IQ2: Static Reduction •Stayed with UH-60L baseline

•Deferred to P3I because technology not ready
IQ3: 5th Percentile Female •Stayed with UH-60L baseline

•Deferred to P3I
IQ4: Rotor Brake •Stayed with provisions only
IQ5: Fire Detection •Stayed with UH-60L baseline

•Deferred to P3I
IQ6: Rotor Track and Balance •Stayed with UH-60L baseline

•Deferred to P3I
146
Attachment 7. Risk Mitigation Example
UH-60M SE-IPT Risk Areas
GFE Subsystem Qual T

e
Likelihood c
1 2 3 4 5
Consequence
T = Technical Risk
C = Cost Risk
080304 S = Schedule Risk Last Updated: 08/03/04
1
147
Risk Mitigation Example (continued)
RISK ITEM: GFE SUBSYSTEM QUALIFICATION

-ENGINEERING (SE IPT)-
Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Subsystem Qualification
The AQSOW identified GFE qualification as Government responsibility. Issues with obtaining the
qualification data for legacy GFE subsystems.
RISK LEVEL: Mod
Technical: Mod to High
Cost: Mod
Schedule: Mod
LIKELIHOOD (of occurrence): e
Restricted AWR or ISAQ until GFE is adequately tested.
-- Some
Some Restrictions are acceptable
acceptable for
for First
First Flight
Flight and
and IOT&E
IOT&E
CONSEQUENCE (if risk materializes): 2
Cannot complete SAQ for full qualification. IFR flight operation restrictions in the OT airworthiness
release and ISAQ
MITIGATION PLAN
Program to perform negotiated ARC-222 EMI testing.
Assess and mitigate the results.
Change to another radio (eg. ARC-231)
POCs:
GOV’T: Roger Olson, Mike Walsh, Greg Kirchhofer
CONT: Tony Sacullo
080304
148
Attachment 8: Technical Review Summary
Govt
Participation
Planned Event Actual Date @ Event
AFCC PDR 19-Dec-2001 N
AFCC CDR 11-Apr-2002 Y
AVC Actuator PDR 31-May-2002 Y
DCU HW PDR 27-Jun-2002 Y
DC 400 Amp Converter PDR 11-Jul-2002 Y
Pitot Heat Sensor PDR 18-Jul-2002 N
ESH PDR 19-Jul-2002 Y
AVC Computer PDR 7-Aug-2002 Y
ADC PDR/CDR 14-Aug-2002 Y
Digital ICS PDR 28-Aug-2002 Y
Pitot Heat Sensor CDR 12-Sep-2002 Y
Crew Seats PDR 17-Sep-2002 Y
DCU HW CDR 17-Sep-2002 Y
DCU SW PDR 18-Sep-2002 Y
FDDCP PDR 19-Sep-2002 Y
Hydraulic Control Logic PDR 25-Sep-2002 N
Squib Test Logic PDR 25-Sep-2002 N
DC 400 Amp Converter CDR 7-Oct-2002 Y
AVR-2B Laser Warning Rcvr PDR 16-Oct-2002 Y
Battery PDR 22-Oct-2002 Y
AVC Actuator CDR 24-Oct-2002 Y
MFD PDR 28-Oct-2002 Y
EGI SRR/PDR 6-Nov-2002 Y
Digital ICS CDR 7-Nov-2002 Y
Fire Ext. Logic PDR#1 5-Dec-2002 Y
AVC Computer CDR 16-Dec-2002 Y
Utility Seats PDR 16-Dec-2002 Y
AVR-2B Laser Warning Rcvr CDR 18-Dec-2002 Y
Hydraulic Logic Module CDR 18-Dec-2002 Y
Squib Test Logic CDR 18-Dec-2002 Y
Battery CDR 7-Jan-2003 Y
Composite Stabilator CDR 9-Jan-2003 Y
Crew Seats CDR 22-Jan-2003 Y
Fire Ext. Logic PDR#2 24-Jan-2003 Y
ESH CDR 28-Jan-2003 Y
Digital Map Kick-off 11-Feb-2003 Y
MFD CDR 12-Feb-2003 Y
FDDCP HW CDR 18-Feb-2003 Y
FMS Hardware CDR 20-Feb-2003 Y
Fire Ext. Logic CDR 6-Mar-2003 Y
EGI CDR/EDR 19-Mar-2003 Y
Reversionary Panel CDR 24-Mar-2003 Y
FDDCP SW CDR 25-Mar-2003 Y
149
Govt
Participation
Planned Event Actual Date @ Event
Data Transfer Unit TIM 16-Apr-2003 N
Data Transfer Unit Kick-off 6-May-2003 Y
Engine Quadrant Warning PDR 15-May-2003 Y
DCU Software CDR 22-May-2003 Y
Digital Maps SRR/PVI#1 3-Jun-2003 Y
FMS Software PDR 17-Jun-2003 Y
MWC Logic Module CDR 22-Jul-2003 Y
Data Transfer Unit PDR 29-Jul-2003 Y
Utility Seats CDR 11-Sep-2003 Y
Digital Maps PDR 21-Oct-2003 Y
Data Transfer Unit TIM 4-Nov-2003 Y
Data Transfer Unit Hardware CDR 13-Nov-2003 Y
Data Transfer Unit Software CDR 3-Dec-2003 Y
Digital Maps CDR 25-Feb-2004 Y
ESIS
FMS Software CDR
IVHMS TIM July 2005 Y
150
Appendix A: UH-60M Upgrade Program Systems Engineering Plan
151

SEP UH-60M Baseline 9mar07 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SEP UH-60M Baseline 9mar07 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UH-60M Black Hawk

Block 1 Modernization Program

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)

SYSTEM ENGINEERING PLAN (SEP)

Document History Log

UH-60M Modernization System Engineering Plan (SEP) Change Record for

List of changes to UH-60M Black Hawk Block 1 Modernization Program SEP

1. Changed cover page to reflect new date

1. Removed Initial Draft from the Title Page

1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1

2.4.1.5 Requirements Flowdown.................................................................................................................45

2.6.4 Leveraging Other Efforts ........................................................................................................................83

FIGURE 1. UH-60M BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS 5

TABLE 1. EMRL 4 CRITERIA 18

Page intentionally blank

1.1 Program Description and Applicable Documents

1.1.1 UH-60M Modernization Program Description

There is no Army Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) for Utility Helicopter

Recapitalization/Upgrade of the BLACK HAWK supports the Army Aviation Modernization

1.1.1.1 UH-60M Baseline Program

1.1.1.2 UH-60M Upgrade Program

1.1.1.3 UH-60M Block 2

1.1.1.4 System Description

FIGURE 1. UH-60M BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS

a. Airframe Structural Improvements. Airframe improvements include redesigned

flight and system parameters to be used to improve Reliability, Maintainability, and

1.1.2 Applicable Documents

Document Title Date Point of Contact

UH-60M Risk Management Plan 03 December 2004 Bill Hanks

UH-60M Configuration Management Plan 28 October 2003 Jim Chojnowski

UH-60M Supportability Plan 25 January 2005 John Smith

The UH-60M System Performance Specification (AVNS-PRF-10002) was developed in 1999-

1.1.3 Program Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

1.2 Program Technical Status

1.3 Approach for SEP Upgrades

2.0 Systems Engineering Application to Life Cycle Phases

• Pre-Systems Development and Demonstration Phase (Risk Reduction)

IPR LUT SIL

FIGURE 2. UH-60M BASELINE/UPGRADE ACQUISITION SCHEDULE

2.1 Life Cycle Phases

2.1.1 Pre-SDD Phase (Risk Reduction Phase)

The following exit criteria for the RR phase were satisfied.

• Identification of the UH-60M performance baseline as established in the System

2.1.2 SDD Phase (Integration and Qualification Phase)

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION EXIT CRITERIA

Internal Lift Demonstrate during flight testing the ability to

2.1.3 Production and Deployment Phase (PD)

2.1.3.1 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

2.1.3.2 Full Rate Production (FRP)

• Successful completion of IOT&E

2.1.3.3 Production and Quality

2.1.3.3.1 Manufacturing Operations

Planning for manufacturing operations focuses on process prove-out to demonstrate detail

2.1.3.3.2 Production Readiness Assessments (PRAs)

Criteria Metric EMRL 4

Design to Cost Design to Cost Cost estimates meet cost goals.

Tooling demonstrated in LRIP. Multiple tooling requirements identified &

Producibility Design producibility improvements demonstrated in LRIP. Process producibility

Maturity Material is proven and controlled in LRIP.

TABLE 1. EMRL 4 CRITERIA

2.1.3.4 Product Assurance

2.1.3.5 System Evaluation

2.1.3.5.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)