PHM on the F-35 Fighter

Dr. Neal N. McCollom

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
PO Box 748, MZ 8671
Fort Worth, TX 76101
817-935-3722
neal.n.mccollom@lmco.com

Edward R. Brown
BAE SYSTEMS Inc.
6100 Western Place, Suite 320
Fort Worth, TX 76107
817-762-1487
edward.r.brown@baesystems.com

Abstract: The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter

(JSF) Program is developing a comprehensive and industryleading Prognostics and Health Management (PHM)
system. This system, which is central to the programs
Performance Based Logistics (PBL) approach, is built on
incremental capability deployment and a careful balance of
on-aircraft and off-board software, systems, and processes.
The breadth of capability development and timing of
deployment is unprecedented for a combat aviation system.
The initial set of F-35 PHM capabilities is currently
deployed and actively supporting the flight test program.
This paper will provide a top level overview of the F-35
PHM concept and architecture, the incremental design
approach, and discuss overall program status. Some
specific examples of long-term system benefits, in relation
to sustainment and PBL business decisions, will be
discussed.

LM JSF Team Program Information

Non-Technical Data Releasable to Foreign Nationals

F-35 Program Pillars

Affordability
Lethalilty

Supportability

Cleared for public release under provisions of PIRA AER200309027

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fig. 1: F-35 Aircraft Vision

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1
2. F-35 PHM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ..................... 2
2.1 PHM SYSTEM ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION ............ 2
2.2 PHM PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT .................. 4
2.3 END-STATE PHM FUNCTIONALITY.................... 5
3. F-35 PHM SYSTEM OPERATION ........................... 5
3.1 PHM SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........ 6
3.2 PHM & SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION .............. 6
3.3 PHM AND PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS ... 7
4. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 7
REFERENCES ............................................................. 8
BIOGRAPHY ............................................................... 8

The F-35 program provides three aircraft variants (see

Figure 2), with a very high degree of common components
and airframe structure. It also provides a complete suite of
supporting functions including training, maintenance,
spare parts, support equipment, and information services. In
its simplest telling, the F-35 PHM system incorporates
advanced technology and integrated capabilities within the
Air Vehicle (AV) together with ground-based Autonomic
Logistics and Global Sustainment (ALGS) systems.
F 35 Variants
Conventional
Take-Off and
Take
Take-Off
Landing
(CTOL)

Carrier Variant
(CV)

1. INTRODUCTION
The F-35 Lightning II program, also know as the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) has recently deployed the initial
elements of its progression of capabilities. Integrated
aircraft Prognostics and Health Management (PHM)
functions, in their basic form, are now in operation in the
flight test program. These functions are coupling airborne
and ground-based systems much earlier than for legacy
programs. This early implementation demonstrates the
programs unique commitment to the creation of a new form
of aircraft and operational systems, with a fundamental and
essential focus on two of the four program pillars
Supportability and Affordability. (see Figure 1)

Length
Length
Span
Span
Wing
Wing Area
Area
Internal
Internal Fuel
Fuel

51.4
51.4 ftft
43
43 ftft
2
668
668 ftft2
19,570
19,570 lb
lb
Length
Length
Span
Span
Wing
Wing Area
Area
Internal
Internal Fuel
Fuel

Length
Length
Span
Span
Wing
Wing Area
Area
Internal
Internal Fuel
Fuel

PIRA AER200802007
2010 Lockheed Martin
2010 British Aerospace North America

978-1-4244-9827-7/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

Survivability

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

51.1
51.1 ftft
35
35 ftft
2
460
460 ftft2
13,888
13,888 lb
lb

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Fig. 2: F-35 Aircraft Variants

51.1
51.1 ftft
35
35 ftft
2
460
460 ftft2
18,073
18,073 lb
lb

Short Take-Off and

Take
Take-Off
Vertical Landing
(STOVL)
121905-19
Public Release

In combination, these elements are defined as the Enterprise

that will sustain high levels of aircraft availability at
significantly lower support costs in a Performance Based
Logistics (PBL) environment. (see Figure 3)

2. F-35 PHM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The F-35 program, like many before, is a staggered
incremental development effort, with on-aircraft elements
generally being developed before or in parallel with groundbased systems. The F-35 program is unique, however, in
developing all this under a single synchronous contractual
umbrella. This enables significant performance benefits
when complete, but which also generates significant levels
of development pressure in technology integration,
schedule, and budget. The unique system architecture and
development approaches ensure the highest level of
confidence of providing the PHM framework and offers a
solid foundation for maturation through continuous
improvement, through the fleet life cycle.

To achieve the F-35 PHM vision, several key characteristics

are essential:

highly capable on-aircraft (or airborne) systems

providing high quality and high confidence aircraft
health information and insight;
highly integrated new technology systems onaircraft to observe, diagnose, and report aircraft
health and condition;
aircraft health data management systems that are
coupled to maintenance and to end-use supply;

2.1 PHM SYSTEM ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION

health code analysis, troubleshooting, health

management and visualization systems, at aircraft,
squadron, and sovereign fleet levels; and

A simplified view of the F-35 PHM Enterprise (see Figure

4) recognizes the aircraft as the definitive source of health
status data, the ground-based systems as the data
management and maintenance authorization source, and the
Enterprise sustainment being provided through close
association of the multiple service owners of the F-35 fleet.

fully integrated Enterprise operations that engage

stakeholders from suppliers to policy makers.
The F-35 business model demands favorable economic
performance from the point of initial deployment which
means providing a highly capable and fully integrated set of
systems at time zero, with future improvements as
operational insight grows to maturity.
Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment
Global Sustainment
Strategy, Partnerships and Business Arrangement That
Provides Warfighter Better Service at Lower Cost

Performance Based Logistics

One Particular Business
Arrangement That Best
Aligns Contractor and
Warfighter

Fig. 4: F-35 PHM Enterprise Architecture

Global Sustainment Enables Program Affordability

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This paper will focus more closely on the airborne and

ground-based systems and their interactions, but will also
address some of their relationships with the sustaining
Enterprise.

121905-41
Public Release

Fig. 3: F-35 PHM Supports Performance Based Logistics

PHM program objectives fall into the categories of high

level of initial capability, systems and processes to achieve
rapid maturity, continuous improvement, and full
integration of system development with end-game business
operational processes. When these act in synchronicity,
they ensure key performance characteristics of increased
platform availability, reduced operating costs, cooperation
with external support systems and processes, and
continuously improving operational sustainment. In short
they are the operational pillars of Supportability and
Affordability.

Prior papers [1,2,4] have discussed the development of

specific technologies used on the F-35, and have offered a
general operating overview of the systems at maturity
[3,5]. A closer look is offered here at the types of decisions
which affect the development of an integrated health
management system.
These include new technology
availability and development cost, subsystems and
integrated system development cost, system operating costs
and effectiveness, and system maintenance and continuous
improvement costs. Of these, the latter is most closely
aligned with the PBL decision and authorization practices,
and so will not be considered here in depth. Those related
2

multiple subsystem failures. Alternate approaches vary by

the class of system being managed. The F-35 approach is
discussed in more detail in [5]. The enhanced diagnostics
that this approach brings replaces or overrides the multiple
basic diagnostics reports, and in many cases successfully
isolates the root cause failure, leading to more efficient
sustainment tasks and significantly improved availability.
By indicating the single component, or even by reducing the
candidate set to a few items, the total on-ground
maintenance time is minimized. Even when ambiguity
remains, the information provided from the aircraft allows
for intelligent selection and structuring of troubleshooting
processes to minimize the maintenance delay prior to
successful isolation and resolution of the failure.

to development of new technology and its general cost to

acquire, stabilize, and deploy have been elsewhere described
to a level suitable for this discussion. It is the balance of onand off-board systems and techniques that have most
affected the initial developmental operation of the F-35
PHM systems.
On the F-35 program, as described in [1] and [3], aircraft
subsystem providers were assigned specific and aggressive
capability targets for self detection of component failures
and life consumption. These benchmarks have been
combined with the integrating PHM software to provide a
common framework of basic diagnostic functions health
reporting, life data collection, and failure event data
collection to support off-board analysis and learning. One
of the central successes of the F-35 program is the operation
of the basic diagnostics services early in the development
program. This has been confirmed using data collected
from initial flight operations, and with PHM system
operation early in the flight test program.
Early
implementation of the PHM system has offered an
opportunity to detect component and system design errors
and enforce corrective action very early in the program.

The off-board systems provide a small set of closely related,

highly coupled services. First, the vehicle health indications
are consolidated, captured locally, and distributed to the
appropriate processing and information systems. These
systems,
from
the
above-mentioned
intelligent
troubleshooting, to maintenance management systems, to
archiving and distribution of supporting information, serve
as an enabler for future product analysis and improvement
opportunities.

Similarly, off-board data systems have been developed to

act on the data received from aircraft beginning with the
initial operations of the first flying vehicle. This has
allowed for early detection and correction of anomalies in
on- and off-board system integration issues. From a classic
aviation development program standpoint, this could appear
as increased development cost and time. However, this
early integration with on- and off-board systems will reduce
the overall F-35 life cycle costs to a significant degree.

The basic diagnostics and data collection functions on the

aircraft serve as data sources for the receiving ground-based
systems and data stores. The off-board systems provide the
human-machine interfaces to the maintenance and life
management systems, the intelligent decision support for
minimal troubleshooting and for maintenance authorization.
All systems are inter-related, with carefully defined
interfaces with the air vehicle data source and with the other
data systems.
The information architecture supports
evolutionary improvement or replacement of system
elements as technology advances and especially important
consideration given that ground-based systems can benefit
early and regularly from rapid advances in information
technology. This approach ensures that the medium-term
maturation and long-term continuous improvement can be
executed with minimal development and deployment costs,
and with very little re-training of the end-user communities.

Each major subsystem on the F-35 vehicle contains sensors,

software, and processing capability (or has off-board
processing available) to detect faults. These subsystems
will also report key data points that can be used to deduce or
infer consumed life. Many systems, especially those that
are deemed safety critical or that provide subsystem
redundancy, also have an integrating layer of software that
can provide additional failure or degradation information.
Reasoning on this information is accomplished through
classic redundancy management schemes or by comparing
actual performance to modeled desired behavior. Finally,
the unique status reports from all of the components or
subsystems are compiled into a common structured health
indication by the PHM software. This constitutes the heart
of F-35s basic diagnostics. The health reporting is
augmented with additional indicators for major aircraft
mode changes, for time subsystem alignment or
synchronization, and with environmental data captured for
each health report. This latter data is most useful for
improving PHM system capability over time, as well as for
post-flight troubleshooting of events that are not readily
resolved at the time of occurrence.
On-aircraft basic diagnostics functions are augmented with
enhanced reasoning models that improve the capability of
determining the root cause failure in the presence of

The economics of determining what functions to implement

on the aircraft essentially reduce to a few points:

sole opportunity to capture fault indications;

economic advantage of consolidating all vehicle
data to a common forma and onto a common
source;
best opportunity to capture salient data or
supporting information;
best opportunity to deduce root cause of the fault,
failure, or event in the operating environment
versus off-line;
economic advantage of identifying root-cause of
fault or failure events early (i.e., early
identification of probable repair or replacement

resources).
Opposing factors include:

the cost and complexity of embedding non flight

essential processing on-aircraft;
the difficulty of implementing changes to fixed
configuration assets;
the cost of re-qualifying airborne products (at the
component level through the aircraft or vehicle
level); and
the cost and difficulty of deploying changes to
supplied products after closure of development
contracts.

Obviously the specific cost decisions vary significantly

depending on the system(s) under consideration. The
approach that is most viable for the F-35 might not be
optimal for rotorcraft, less so for large marine platforms,
and even less so for ground based systems or infrastructure.
The general criteria outlined above are readily generalized
for these and other classes of systems. But even within a
system such as the F-35, there may still be significant
variation in approach, given other technical or business
factors such as availability of process capacity, effectiveness
and reliability of supporting information technologies, and
the ever-present budgetary pressure during large-scale
development programs. However, the broad guidelines
readily lend themselves to the general architecture described
above.

Fig. 5: F-35 PHM Progressive Development

This last phase brings the advantages (and the inherent

difficulties) of distributed operation and decision making
across the user/provider/supplier areas of interest, and is
generally driven by economics. The tendency to make
locally optimal but system-wide sub-optimal economic
decisions is managed through the evolving ground rules of
the PBL environment. The deep involvement of suppliers,
especially for those providing highly integrated or highly
complex functions, is dependent upon new technology
which is both necessary and highly sensitive. Add the
further dimension of multiple service owners of the fleet, it
will be apparent to the reader that this is an area that will
ripe for discussion for some time to come.

2.2 PHM PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT

Focusing instead on the near-term achievable objectives, the

F-35 PHM program has already developed and deployed the
initial elements of basic diagnostics and the supporting offboard systems. This offered both proof-of-concept for the
F-35 PHM approach, and an opportunity to capture
improvements from observed effects of the installed system.
Thus the health management systems are now both
operating and improving in conjunction with the flight test
program, driving corrective action and improvement
prioritization across the development life cycle phases.

A key aspect to the successful deployment of a complex

integrated system such as the F-35 PHM is the progressive
implementation of capabilities and features. The overall
system architecture described above allows for the
appropriate placement of complexity within the on-aircraft
and off-board system functions. In general, the on-aircraft
basic diagnostics, off-board health management, and initial
maintenance management functions are developed and
deployed first, to drive earliest maturity into these core
capabilities. The next phase is to incorporate enhanced
diagnostics on-aircraft and enhanced decision systems offboard, covering troubleshooting and system life decisions.
As the overall system is maturing, all the on- and off-board
elements are in a Continuous Improvement cycle, while the
Enterprise systems are fully described and implemented.
(See Figure 5)

Additional data recording is added to the basic diagnostics

on-aircraft, so that there is ample supporting data for both
troubleshooting and maintenance in the early development
period, and so that initial life consumption algorithms
(Prognostics) can be developed and improved. While
maintenance decisions in the earliest periods of F-35
operations are dominated by traditional failure-driven
criteria and by classic reliability predictions, this early
capture and monitoring time allows for high-confidence
decisions earlier. This in turn leads to on-condition
maintenance as a replacement for time-based or scheduled
maintenance. One of the key goals for the F-35 program is
to minimize time-based maintenance (e.g., replace part X
after 1000 hours of operation). Instead maintenance is
based on an assessed component condition on failure
when it occurs, but also on life condition when the usage
4

profile and performance data indicates. This is a major

contributor to the affordability pillar of the F-35.

2.3 END-STATE PHM FUNCTIONALITY

The total F-35 PHM system performance uses a balance of
on-aircraft capabilities, off-board systems, and Enterprise
processes; and it builds progressively from basic diagnostics
and simple maintenance management, to a state of fully
integrated advanced PHM under a continuously improving
Enterprise. The long term benefits to the maturing global
organization are both operational and economic increased
AO and decreased Life Cycle Costs. This relates back to the
pillars of Supportability and Affordability. But it also
supports or even enables increased efficiencies in the
Supply Chain, from demand-driven spares quantity and
placement, to opportunistic maintenance supporting
predictive end-life proximity and the consequential
improvements to both AO (again) and to product flow
through and lead-time planning for the Supply Chain. The
mature Enterprise can take advantage of the information and
decision support that comes from the fully capable PHM
system. And both the end user and the providers can realize
the economic and financial advantages inherent in a modern
PBL relationship. (See Figure 6)

Enhanced diagnostics are the next PHM technology to be

integrated into the development program, with a
complementary decision support system off-board added at
the same time. The aircraft provides root-cause failure
indicators, allowing the off-board system to recognize but
not take unnecessary action on symptomatic faults. An
example was described in [5]. Implementation is now well
underway, and initial testing of these capabilities will begin
at the same time as basic diagnostic functions. To support
them, an advanced maintenance aid has been developed to
serve as an advisory and instructional system to the
maintainer. This computer-aided system will also provide
an alternate method to move data between the aircraft and
the ground-based systems. This device will first see
operation with the basic diagnostics capable vehicles, but
will also gradually increase in capability as systems and
capabilities are added to the aircraft. The ultimate vision is
to fully isolate all failures on the aircraft which will be
achieved for many faults, but there will always be some
number of system failures that cannot be completely
resolved without outside assessment. The Anomaly and
Failure Resolution System (AFRS), will allow the groundbased systems to provide the best options or approaches to
troubleshooting such cases, and so reduce the time to return
a failed system to a fully capable state. In short, when there
is an inevitable maintenance delay time, the Operational
Availability (AO) impact will be minimized.

F-35 Program Information

Non Export Controlled Information Releasable to Foreign Persons

Prognostics & Health Management

Improves Aircraft Availability
Fleet Management Activities
PMD

Air Vehicle PHM

Enhanced Diagnostics / BIT
Fault Corroboration
Information Fusion
Health Management Reports

In the completed system, the on-aircraft data collection,

basic and enhanced diagnostics, and supporting systems are
implemented and deployed to cover all installed systems.
The Enterprise systems are developed to support continuous
improvement, the execution of PBL, and the emphasis on
economically-driven change.
This also involves the
archival and advanced technology for data mining for
hidden relationships or for non-obvious trending and the
development of future prognostic algorithms.

Downlink
Customer Support
PMA

Autonomic Logistics
Information System
Decision Support
Off Board PHM
Information

Unit Level Maintenance

Effective Fault Isolation
Condition Based

Suppliers and OEMs

Diagnostic
Tools
Integration
Failure Resolution
Assess Material Condition
Prognostic Algorithms

PHM Supports Performance Based Logistics within the ALGS

Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is subject to the restrictions on the Cover Page

Fig. 6: PHM Supports the Enterprise

One significant advantage to this phased or progressive

implementation approach is that the system developers can
develop the capabilities that are of core value first. They
will then add on the planned enhancements in a naturally
staged manner, and build the infrastructure to support
known
but
as-yet-unspecified
expansions
and
improvements. This may all be accomplished while
maintaining a development cost focus. This allows the
program to build increasing capability in a just-in-time
manner, minimizing the impact of uncertainty or missing
information until it has the chance to be resolved through
early operational experience. Another advantage is the
ability to focus contractual improvements with the
suppliers systems and components while their
developmental experience is still engaged, and
improvements to the integrating health management
functions.

3. F-35 PHM SYSTEM OPERATION

The advantages of the F-35 PHM System can perhaps best
be considered by comparing the total system reaction to a
few closely related but differently scaled scenarios. In the
first, aircraft are operating normally, with no exceptional
issues arising. In the second, a fielded aircraft experiences a
failure on a certain component call it System Z. In the
third, a local trend is observed, where System Z faults are
now noted across several vehicles, at a rate above what
would normally be expected. And in the fourth, a much
larger trend is observed, with the failures in System Z
occurring across the fleet at a higher than predicted rate.
First, though, an introduction to some of the PHM related
metrics are in order.
5

sources. It is also useful as an indication of increasing

maturity of the PHM system, and is a useful supplement to
the data driving PHM system improvement decisions.

3.1 PHM SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

It is important to consider what the F-35 PHM program
measures in order to ensure robust operation. First and
foremost, there are the classic indications of Fault Detection
and Fault Isolation (FD/FI) comparing the designed or
theoretical levels of performance against the very-long term
trend of observed performance. FD is just what it appears
the automatic self-observation and reporting of faults in the
system. In nearly all cases this is the primary indication of
one or more failed components. FI is the correct indication
of the root cause fault that is causing numerous symptoms.
An example of this is considered in [3] and [5], using the
example of a cooling system fault causing numerous cooled
symptoms to also report failures. FD/FI are generally
presented in terms of percentage of ideal coverage, but can
also be assessed in terms of operating time between failures.
A second key measure is False Alarm (FA) rate where
maintenance action is taken that is not necessary, or which
does not correctly resolve the root cause. The latter
condition must carefully consider the cases where one fault
masks a second. FA metrics must consider the difference
between reporting that causes the pilot (or other operator) to
take compensating action, versus those that cause a removeand-replace action at the vehicle. One problem that arises is
that the fault can not be duplicated by the supplier. This
could indicate that either the part was actually good and
not failed or that the failure could not be duplicated as the
conditions where the failure occurred can not be replicated
on the ground. These conditions suggest that multiple
measures are needed, and that they consider the entire
component migration through the maintenance loop of the
Supply Chain.

Fig. 7: Example of Operational Availability

The central concept is to provide appropriate visibility into

the material condition of the component, system, or fleet
being assessed, so that decisions can be made at the policyappropriate level.

3.2 PHM & SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION

Turning now to the example introduced above, we envision
four simple cases: first System Z is free of fault or defect,
and the aircraft is operating normally; second there is a
singleton occurrence of a System Z fault, requiring
maintenance action; third there is a local cluster of System
Z faults occurring within an operating squadron or group;
and fourth there is a notable trend of System Z faults
happening ahead of the reliability forecast rate.

Long term trending is also a crucial measure, especially for

indication of either improvement or degradation, for
subsystems and components, for vehicles, and for groupings
up the to enterprise fleet level. Maturity curves that forecast
progressive improvements (as well as down-stepping where
usage changes, or where new elements or new technology is
introduced) serve as targets for the observed measures of
merit; a trend of deviation below the target provides
evidence of the need for either modified usage or for
investment in product improvement. Long term trending is
also useful in assessing aggregates of design life
consumption, across varying groups of similar and similarly
used elements from components to squadrons.

The first case is fundamentally uninteresting, with two

exceptions. One is the continuous capture of life usage
information from the various aircraft, and the low-rate
transmission of that data into the Enterprise archives. Note
that this data can accumulate to a fairly significant size
when combined with other usage data from other systems on
each aircraft, flying multiple sorties per day over a multiday deployment. Tens of megabytes of data per aircraft
over such a deployment rate would not be unexpected.
Fortunately there is not a demand for instantaneous access
to this data, in the general failure-free case. The other point
of interest is the experience and frame of reference, or set of
expectations, that is being established within the local
maintenance community.
Since System Z is not
experiencing any significant problems, there would be little
attention given to it, other than its contribution to over all
aircraft health and life.
But the data systems are
accumulating experience, and are settling on a typical range
of performance effectively setting control bounds on the
expected performance for this type of system at this level of

The fundamental metric that directly supports the PBL

operation, is AO (see Figure 7).
Ideal availability,
independent of local and supply chain logistics delay, can be
calculated as a theoretical target, but requires significant
assumptions (e.g., zero administrative delay, or
unconstrained supply of spares and consumables) that
quickly break down in the presence of actual operations.
While AO can be used as a target for financial incentive, it is
equally useful as an indication or variation in the Enterprise
processes, across fleets, aircraft types, or component
6

improvement to AO, as the increasing number of unexpected

maintenance events is driving increased down time and
maintenance workload. If the trend has a large enough
economic impact, it could also drive changes to the
Enterprise procedures for this system, and even end user
policy on aircraft usage. The most extreme cases could
involve grounding aircraft for safety considerations which
would have a very clear and unfavorable impact on
availability a decision that is not made lightly, given the
economic and readiness repercussions.

life consumption.
The second case is somewhat more interesting. When the
aircraft experiences the fault in System Z, as well as any
sympathetic failures or faults that are induced, the root
cause is isolated to System Z, and a maintenance
procedure to replace (or repair in place, if viable) is initiated
once the vehicle returns to a maintenance-capable facility.
This stimulates several areas of the PHM system. The fault
detection is noted and recorded, as is the operating
environment information surrounding the time of the fault
observation. This data is captured locally for use during
troubleshooting (if required) and also archived for future
trend or anomaly analyses. The life consumed is also noted,
and the life tracking initiated for the new (or repaired) unit.
If it was not repaired in place, the faulty unit is returned to
the supplier for repair and eventual return, or is scrapped if
not economically repairable.

Although these scenario summaries do not detail the

topology or interface between the affected systems, it should
be clear from the PHM system descriptions throughout this
paper that the more extensive the distribution of faults, the
more the stresses on the Enterprise and Supply Chain.
Corrective action will tend to be done at the most
economically viable level, with compensation within the
ground-based PHM and Enterprise systems tending to be
preferred, at least for short-term reaction.

The third case follows the same sequence as the second, at

least regarding the response to the individual fault.
However, the local maintenance management notes that the
number of System Z failures is now significant and
beyond the typically expected quantity or density of faults.
So at a local level, the maintenance management and staff
will investigate for common cause increased level of life
consumed as expected due to the particular types of usage
(e.g., mission mix); or common local maintenance issues
(e.g., need for additional training, or for revised procedures
uniquely adapted to the maintenance location); or other
common cause.
Fleet management would likely be
informed if not actively engaged, with the objective of
gathering similar observations at other sites or fleets and
applying any corrective action or refinement that had been
already proven successful. The supplier would also likely
be informed particularly if the usage or duty cycle for the
device differs from the design-to standard. The supplier
would reasonably be expected to take more aggressive
action in maintaining the Supply Chain, since there is now a
local trend that has steadily consumed and possibly
diminished the available spares supply. Diversion of
unused spares from other pre-positions storage would be
preferred over manufacture of additional replacement units
and the inherent increase in total operational cost.

3.3 PHM AND PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS

The primary driving metric that supports the PBL operation
is Operational Availability (AO). It is the trigger to
determine when the total Enterprise system is working
properly, and when it is not. When AO measures approach
the theoretical reliability maxima, the system is stable and
improving. When deviations persist or when degradations
are observed, there is a clear need for intervention and
corrective action.
A secondary benefit is the secondary focus on Supply Chain
efficiency. If the absolute minimum material is cycled
through the Supply Chain for repair and restocking, then
PBL operation performance will be driven largely by
component reliability. And since reliability improvement
programs are a well understood and widely used technique
to get secondary affect on Supply Chain performance, PBL
decisions will drive additional PHM capability on- or offboard, in supplier product, or in processes and policies.

4. CONCLUSION
Looking forward, the F-35 PHM system at maturity exhibits
the characteristics of a continuously improving operation.
The integrated on-aircraft elements have been validated and
enhanced, and improvements made to the subsystems and
components. The classic FD/FI measures show that the
aircraft systems have reached a highly capable and stable
level of operation. Any changes will now being driven by
other considerations from diminishing manufacturing
sources and availability of new technology, especially for
electronics, to product improvement for enhanced
performance, to the addition of new elements and
components into the aircraft. Event-driven and performance
monitoring data are being successfully captured and stored
for off-board analysis and life trending.

The fourth case takes the case one significant step farther in
that the local trend is also observed at a more global level.
It may be interesting to note that this fourth case may also
be stimulated by a distribution of locally unique failures, but
which aggregate at a fleet level. In addition to the increased
maintenance demand at the various locales, there is also an
increased pressure on the Supply Chain. This is more likely
to drive both near-term and long-term corrective action,
which could span from providing additional units as spares,
to initiating a product improvement redesign. The supplier
would request access to the applicable usage data, to help
determine what usage and loads the failed System Z
components had experienced. The trigger now is explicitly
7

REFERENCES

Off-board systems are successfully managing the aircraft

health data, enabling the maintenance end users to make
informed best-value decisions on aircraft maintenance and
life management. The systems also allow fleet managers to
optimize use of the aircraft for their intended missions, and
to manage the overall life of the fleet. The integration of
information from numerous systems deployed across the
user services lets the development and integration contractor
to investigate and rapidly resolve anomalous situations that
do arise.

[1] Engel S, Gilmartin B, Bongort K, Hess A., Prognostics,

The Real Issues Associated With Predicting Life
Remaining, March 2000 IEEE Conference
[2] Calvello G., Dabney T., Hess A. PHM a Key Enabler for
the JSF Autonomic Logistics Support Concept, paper #
1601, 2004 IEEE Conference, March 2004.
[3] Hess A. and Fila L. Prognostics, from the Need to
Reality from the Fleet Users and PHM System Designer
/ Developers Perspectives, paper #116, 2002 IEEE
Conference, March 2002.

The Enterprise is operating smoothly, with essential

information moving near real time from fielded vehicles to
the local management systems to the complete fleet
management center.
Detailed event-driven data and
information is routed to decision centers and to suppliers as
needed, to assist in the quick turn-around of failed or
damaged components. Suppliers, service providers, and end
users work in concert to keep vehicles in service as long as
they safely can, scheduling maintenance and service on or
ahead of condition, with decreasing numbers of failuredriven service.

[4] Hess A., Frith P., Calvello G. Challenges, Issues, and

Lessons Learned Chasing the Big P: Real Prognostics
Part 1, paper # 1595, 2005 IEEE Conference, March
2005.
[5] Brown, E., McCollom, N., Moore, E., Hess A.
Prognostics and Health Management: A Data Driven
Approach to Supporting the F-35 Lightning II, paper #
1597, 2007 IEEE Conference, March 2007.

A mature PHM system fulfills the core sustainment tenets

the program operational pillars of Affordability and
Supportability. It does so through the full realization of the
architectural vision, involving complete integration of the
development cycle, the product deployment cycle, and the
complete Supply Chain operation.
The system is
continuously improving itself, making advantageous use of
new technology where there is economic benefit. It is being
matured early and is applying corrective change back on
itself from the earliest stages of development. In doing so, it
applies the lessons learned from its numerous legacy
programs develop early, mature early, stabilize early.
The F-35 PHM system brings unique new technology to
fruition, but gains its maximum advantage through the early
and complete integration of the many systems and
organizations involved. In this sense more than any other,
the F-35 approach is readily adaptable to other aviation
platforms, aerospace platforms, land based and marine
systems, and to many other applications mobile or fixed.
The effort is formidable, but manageable. The necessary
integration is complex, but achievable. And ultimately the
end-game advantages are realized when the operation
reaches maturity and stability, yielding the envisioned
operational and economic benefit.

BIOGRAPHY
Neal N. McCollom has been the PHM
Integrator for the F-35 Autonomic
Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS)
organization since shortly after contract
award. His main task is to provide an
interface
between
the
ALGS
development and the on-aircraft PHM
development to ensure that the onaircraft capabilities are properly integrated into the ALGS
processes and products. He has many years of experience in
software/systems development, knowledge-based systems,
and manufacturing shop floor systems. Neal received his
PhD in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University,
a BS and MIE in Industrial Engineering and Management
from Oklahoma State University. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in Texas.
Edward R. Brown is Senior Manager for
F-35 Lightning II Prognostics and Health
Management, responsible for PHM
product development and integration for
all F-35 aircraft systems, across the JSF
Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman /
BAE SYSTEMS team. Ed, an employee
of BAE SYSTEMS Inc., has held
leadership roles in the JSF program since
the contract was awarded in October 2001, and prior to that
was part of the Collier Award winning X-35 STOVL
Propulsion Lift System team. He has worked aviation
control and diagnostic systems since the early 1980s,
including commercial and military Digital Engine Controls,
V-22 and C-17 Flight Control Systems, and rotary and fixed
wing research and experimental vehicle control systems
from X-Wing to the X-35. Ed has a BS in Mathematics
from the University of Hartford.

10