Avionics Architecture Design for a Future
Generation Fighter Aircraft
Z. Seda Mor Naveed Asghar
Avionics and Mission System Avionics and Mission System
Engineering Integration Engineering Integration
Turkish Aerospace BAE Systems
Ankara, Turkey Ankara, Turkey
zsmor@tai.com.tr naveed.asghar5@baesystems.com
Abstract - In this work, we provide insight on
the avionics architecture design process for a future
generation fighter program. This program carries
a unique development phasing strategy which
includes the design of the Block-0 prototype in
2026, the design of the Block-1 in 2028 and full scale
production block in 2030. Given this cascaded and
progressive schedule, we consider an avionics
architecture design process which can be further
enhanced even during the development phase.
However, all the design, integration, verification
and long term modification activities of the fighter
program are tightly coupled to the avionics
architectural selections. In that sense, one the
major architectural design drivers are to establish
a design strategy and program flowchart to prevent
extensive re-testing and re-certification issues
between the different blocks of the program. In
light of these constraints and schedule and cost
risks, we consider a phase by phase progressive
architecture development which can provide a
basis for risk reduction through demonstrations,
analyses, and modeling efforts.
In that sense, we first review a) similar type of
fighter aircrafts’ avionics architectures and b)
potential new technologies that will be available
within the development cycle. Specifically, we
highlight the main challenges that the system
engineer must consider from technical, technology
window, technology readiness, export licence and
industrialization perspective. Specifically, for each
of the blocks, different types of avionics
architectures ranging from federated architecture
to Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) and Open
System Architecture (OSA) are analyzed. In this
work, we provide in detail the current avionics
architecture for Block-0 Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) which utilizes mainly
Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) equipment and
systems.
Keywords or Index Terms – Progressive avionics
architecture, 5th. gen. fighter aircraft, next gen.
978-1-7281-0649-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Gokhan Inalhan
Faculty of Aeronautics and
Astronautics,
Istanbul Technical University,
Aerospace Research Center
Istanbul, Turkey
inalhan@itu.edu.tr
fighter aircraft, federated architecture, IMA,
capability drop, ELC.
I. INTRODUCTION
The realization of a next generation fighter
aircraft is a complex process. The challenges
arise from the modern operational roles
expected to be carried out and the ever
increasing technology capability. This
complexity is managed through the framework
of the Engineering Life Cycle.
In this study we detail the various challenges
that exist for a future generation aircraft and
present the natural progression of avionics
architecture through the ELC for a future
generation fighter program. Figure 1 shows the
concept contour design of the Turkish TF-X
program [1].
This program adopts a phasing strategy which
has capability drops called Block-0, 1, 2 and
final (future) configuration. (See below Figure
2). Specifically, we consider a phase by phase
progressive architecture development which can
provide a basis for risk reduction through
demonstrations, analyses and modeling efforts.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows.
Section II presents Engineering Life Cycle. In
Section III, we provide a review and insight on
the fighter architecture evolution history and
denote the challenges associated with 5th
generation fighter aircrafts. Specifically, we
underline the potential solutions and the
associated difficulties with these solutions.
Section IV presents requirement flow and
avionics subsystems. Section V Capability
Approach consists of capability drops and our
 Figure 1 Concept Design Contour of TF-X Program [1]
Block-0 design approach for the avionics
architecture and provides a comparative
analysis of various alternatives. The last section
is devoted to conclusions and future study.
Figure 2 Development Program Flowchart
II. ENGINEERING LIFE CYCLE
In this work, we use Cockpit Avionics
Subsystem (CAS) as an example to demonstrate
the lifecycle of the avionics architecture. Figure
3 illustrates the Engineering Life Cycle (ELC)
for the avionics system.
Figure 3 ELC Diagram
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
We detail the engineering life cycle of our
TF-X program below using CAS as an
illustrator.
A. Concept Phase
The Concept Phase begins with initial
recognition of a need or a requirement, in this
instance cockpit Displays and Controls (D&C),
satisfying the customer (Turkish Air Forces
(TurAF)) modern (5th generation) avionics
requirements. This phase is an initial
exploration, based on the customer provided
higher level requirements. Specifically, it
assesses economic, technical and strategic user,
business, mission perspectives and yields at
least one concept.
The concepts require feasibility analysis
and trade studies. One or more alternative
concepts to meet the identified needs or
requirements are developed through analysis,
feasibility evaluations, estimations (such as
cost, schedule, market intelligence and
logistics), and trade studies.
Once feasibility analysis and trade studies
are completed, it is expected that a preferred
concept will emerge. This preferred concept is
to be presented at concept completion (which is
referred in the TF-X program as the Alternative
System Review (ASR)) to the user/customer
for feedback and acceptance.
The aforementioned CAS presents the
preferred D&C systems. Specifically, these
systems consist of various configurations
including the subsystems below:
 - Head down Displays; fighter aircraft, particularly from concept
o Multifunctional display (MFD), phase plays a crucial decision point for
o Wide area displays (WAD), considering foreign collaboration partners.
- Head up Display (HUD),
- Helmet Mounted Display (HMD),
- Dedicated display,
- Dedicated control panels.
As such, examples of future Cockpit D&C
capabilities include at least:
- Augmented Reality,
- Touchscreen capability,
- Haptic feedback capability.
In that perspective, when conceiving the
cockpit D&C architecture, the key things
considered are issues such as: Figure 5 BAE Systems AR Trend [2]
- Interfaces with other systems,
- Safety critical requirements, For challenges to avionics as a whole
- Human Machine Interface (HMI) (includes comms, sensor etc.) we refer the
requirements. reader to Section III. Industrialization is a key
consideration for TF-X when choosing a
It is envisioned that the concept phase concept. This is because the national agenda
eventually yields a concept architecture. As dictates that solutions are to maximize local
such, an example of a Cockpit Display development, production and support. The
architecture is illustrated in Figure 4. challenge this brings is that there are non- local
solutions that potentially offer advanced
capability. In order to provide similar
capability, the local companies would need to
rapidly advance their own capabilities in a short
period of time.
In conclusion after the relevant analysis
trade study etc. at the ASR a preferred concept
is presented and a decision is made (by the
customer) whether to continue with the
preferred concept solution in the Development
Stage.
Figure 4 An example of Cockipt Display Architecture
B. Development Phase
In this work, whilst conceiving the future The Development Phase for TF-X Program
generation avionics concept, we consider the begins with the successful completion of the
following points: concept phase i.e. a feasible concept accepted by
- Technology window - i.e. what is the customer.
technically achievable today and what can Planning for this stage includes preparing to
be achievable in the coming years. establish an infrastructure of development
- Technology readiness - i.e. a concept may enabling systems consisting of facilities,
be prototyped but not gone through processes, procedures, methods, techniques,
tools and competent human resources to
rigorous assessment for it to be a viable
undertake analysis, modelling and simulation,
solution. For example, many companies
prototyping, design, integration, test, transition
have developed prototype of Augmented and documentation. These items are developed or
Reality (AR) systems (as illustrated in acquired to be available when needed.
Figure 5) but this technology needs further TF-X will have a capability staged approach
development for utilization in a fighter to development i.e. systems will be developed
aircraft environment and certification. according to the capability required for each
- Export license- Exporting stage. We refer the reader to Section V for further
technology/equipment to and from other details on this. Development stage consists of 3
countries need to be considered based on sub-phases. These are:
strategic government level relationships.
- Experience – Existence of relevant
experience in developing a next generation

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 a. Design Phase X also considers COTS or Modified COTS
Design sub-phase began with the start of products.
Development Stage. Main focus of this sub- c. V&V Phase
phase is to design the system and all components.
Verification and validation sub-phase is
During this sub-phase, requirements, detailed
envisioned to begin post Build Phase. Main
architecture and design are defined. In the design
focus of this sub-phase is to integrate, test (i.e.
phase all requirements are:
V&V) the system incrementally.
- Identify/Captured,
Figure 8 shows the WAD integrated with
- Decomposed into their systems/subsystems
the PU, testing will ensure interoperability.
e.g. hardware, software, operator, process,
facility and interfaces etc. This is illustrated
in Section IV,
- Matured to specification.
Defined requirements, designed architectures
and system definitions should also be in
compliance with further lifecycles needs and
expectations. These includes verification,
production, in-service and disposal. This means
that each requirement and product should be
reviewed and validated during the design as if
they are verifiable, producible, operation
Figure 7 An IMA example for CAS
compatible, supportable and made of and by
proper materials and processes that may be
retired, retrofitted or disposed at the end of the
life cycle.
As such, in Figures 6 and 7 we provide
detailed architecture alternatives of the D&C
system. Note the change in the level of maturity
expected at the Design Phase when compared to
the concept architecture in Figure 4.

Figure 8 WAD with integrated PU

Figure 6 A Federated architecture example for CAS
Specifically, Figure 6 illustrates a
Federated Architecture whereas Figure 7
illustrates an IMA. We refer the reader to
Section V for an example of Federated
Architecture and IMA for the whole avionics
and a comparison between Federated
Architecture and IMA.
The output of the Design Phase is detailed
specification mature enough for the build
phase.
b. Build Phase
Build Phase for TF-X program is
envisioned as manufacturing of build-to
specification product. For example, WAD,
HMD and PU etc. are built (prototyped) for
Verification and Validation (V&V) Phase. TF-
C. Production Phase
Production Phase is to be executed for serial
manufacturing of the approved product (i.e.
verified & validated product/system). This shall
not be confused with production of the test
aircrafts.
Number of initial components to be
productionized will be dependent on:
- Fleet size,
- Maintenance policy i.e. spare parts.
D. In-Service Phase
In-Service Phase will be initiated with the
first operational system/product delivery to
customer. Specifically, we note the air vehicle,
D&C avionics products being part of this phase.
In-Service Phase is executed to enable and
ensure continuing operation of system/product in
its intended environment.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The phase is envisioned to begin with
activities necessary to initially deliver, transport,
receive, process, assemble, install, checkout,
train, operate, house and store. Activities of this
phase includes:
- Training,
- Support (Logistics & Maintenance),
- Through life support (e.g. obsolescence).
E. Disposal Phase
The Disposal Phase, per definition, begins
with the decision to take the product/system out
of service, but the planning for the stage starts in
the preceding stages. Disposal is also a matter of
Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health
Program which should hand out the disposal
requirements to design and affect in service
stage.
b. 2nd generation jet fighters (mid-1950s to
early-1960s)
The main differences between first and
second generation are the usage of onboard
radars and passive-homing infrared-guided
missiles. Some aircraft even had radar warning
receivers in their avionics suite. Changes in
aerodynamic structure and engine performance
were needed in order to support the integration
of new equipment to aircraft. Improvements in
both aerodynamics and engines allowed
supersonic cruise for these fighters. F-104 (See
Figure 9), F-5, MiG-19 and MiG-21 are well-
known second generation fighters.

In the next section we consider the evolution

of the 5th generation fighter aircraft with a
historic perspective and provide the challenges
for the TF-X program.

III. 5TH GENERATION FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

ARCHITECTURE EVOLUTION &
CHALLENGES
The term ‘aircraft generation’, which applies
only to jets rather than propeller driven aircraft,
emerged as to classify fighter aircraft
improvements. These improvements include
aircraft design, weapon systems and avionics
systems. Generation leaps occur in need of
major modification to existing generation. In the
rest of this section we review the fighter
generations and show where TurAF positions
the Turkish TF-X program with regards to the
progression of fighter generations within its
inventory.
Figure 9 Lockheed F-104G Starfighter and TF-104G
A. EVOLUTION Starfighter, previous TurAF inventory [4]

a. 1st generation jet fighters (mid-1940s to
mid-1950s)
This generation consists of first jet fighters
until mid-1950’s. These jet fighters, had basic
avionics systems that allowed them to fly and
navigate safely. They were armed with light
cannons, as well as unguided bombs and
rockets. Fighters like F-86, MiG-15 and MiG-17
are considered as first generation fighters [3].
Jet engines were first used in these fighters,
which did not have an afterburner option,
allowing only subsonic speeds.
c. 3rd generation jet fighters (early 1960s to
1970)
The end of second generation started with
the usage of beyond visual range weapons and
improvements in maneuverability. Usage of
radars is significantly increased and used for
off-bore-sight targeting, lookdown/shoot down
capability with Doppler radar and semi-active
RF guided missiles. A new term “Multi-Role
Fighter” emerged for these types of aircraft.
Some of the aircrafts classified in this
generation are F-4 Phantom II (See Figure 10),
MIG-23 and Mirage-III.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Figure 10 Mc Donnell-Douglas F-4/2020,
Inventory [5]
d. 4th generation jet fighters (1970 to late
1980s)
Heavy improvements on avionic systems
triggered the emergence of this generation.
Head-up displays, advanced digital computers,
development of “fly by wire” equipment and
improvements in navigation, communication
and identification systems were the main
striking improvements. Fighters in this
generation mostly were able to switch roles
between air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. F-
15, F-16 (See Figure 11), F/A-18, MIG-29, Su-
27 and Mirage-2000 are the main examples of
fourth generation fighters.
Figure 11 F-16C and F-16D Fighting Falcon, TurAF
inventory [5]
e. 4.5 generation jet fighters (late 1980s and
into the 90s)
The term “four and half generation” is used
to define the aircrafts that becomes more
sophisticated as a result of a serial modification.
F-16 aircraft is the most commonly known
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
example of this gen. While being some of them
are gradually evolved to 4.5 gen within years as
F-16 and F-15, the others directly designed in
accordance with the specifications of this
generation such as F-18, Gripen, Rafale,
Typhoon, and Mig-35.
f. 5th generation jet fighters (2005 to date)
Capability of super cruise, super
TurAF maneuverability, sensor fusion for complete
situational awareness and stealth are the most
crucial features of a fifth generation fighter. The
F-22 Raptor, the first 5th generation fighter jet,
was introduced in 2005. F-35, J-20, Su-57, KF-
X and TF-X are the most popular fifth
generation development programs.
B. CHALLENGES
The transition to the 5th generation fighter
has brought some design challenges. The motto
of fifth generation fighter aircraft is: “The pilot
is commander; warfighter is the aircraft.” From
this point of view; while designing new avionics
architecture for a next generation fighter, new
requirements bring new challenges to be solved,
the most important ones being:
• Data Bus Capability,
• Processing Power,
• Sensor and Data Fusion,
• Off Ship Sensor,
• Network Centric Warfare,
• Stealth Mode Communication,
• Stealth RF Aperture technology,
• Robustness and Reliability Levels,
• Human Machine Interface (HMI)
and
• Dynamic Reconfiguration
Capability.
The above mentioned parameters play an
effective role in shaping the design activities in
Block-1 and beyond. Table 1 provides a list of
challenges and solution methods and discusses
their potential difficulties.
 TABLE 1 CHALLENGES, POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND probability of challenge.
DIFFICULTIES detection (LPD) Energy
and low controlled
probability of waveform with
interception LPI / LPD
Challenges Potential Difficulties (LPI) features. characteristics
Solutions need to be
revealed.
Data Bus While designing It is necessary to Stealth RF Conformal These antenna
Capability the avionics achieve Aperture antenna and related
architecture, it deterministic Technology structures and equipment need
is necessary to data transfer related RF to be
add the data that will occur switch technologically
buses that have during military equipment are developed.
potential of deployment and required.
growth and can adaptation of Robustness and These have to In case of card
respond to high-capacity Reliability be very high for failure, it is
future needs. interfaces being Levels a 5th generation necessary to
developed in aircraft. For this follow the
civilian reason, it is transaction
environments to necessary to add history of the
a 5th generation back-up card that caused
aircraft. functions in the failure, so
Processing In order to At present order to isolate that the backup
Power increase processors with component- card can be
processing 16 cores are based tasks switched on.
power, available. There from errors. In This requires
processors with are some card-based defining how
more core needs constraints to approximation, often and in
to be added to their use on a spare card which format
the design. military must be located data should be
platforms. in the system for kept on the
Particularly keeping work backup card.
cooling related files of the
issues need to working card
be addressed. In and taking over
addition, real- the work where
time operating it is in error.
systems that can Human Requires data The biggest
catch up with Machine appropriate for challenge that
the speed of Interface (HMI) the characters can be
these processors and encountered is
need to go on anticipations of introduction of
the market. pilots flying 5th pilot characters
Sensor & Data Concurrent It is difficult to generation to the aircraft
Fusion sampled data compare the fighter aircraft. and turning
need to be image data from Because pilot's them into
compared. the optical risk taking screens.
(Comparisons systems amounts always The aircraft
of the data supplied by RF different. Here needs to learn
coming from systems. A good the need and the flight
optical and RF database needs desire of the characteristics
sensors located to be created. pilot is of the pilot.
on the aircraft, important.
synchronously.) Dynamic It is necessary to The greatest
Off Ship Sensor Sensor data The biggest Reconfiguration determine what challenge here
Coupling from other challenge here Capability capability the is to collect data
platforms is the timing of aircraft has on over a very long
outside the data from all flight phases. period of time
aircraft (another different In the event of a and to make
5th generation sensors. If these malfunction, the these data
aircraft, UAV, data cannot be aircraft must be meaningful.
satellite etc.) provided in the able to Another
must be same time demonstrate challenge is
combined with frame, which mission how to present
sensor data from incomplete or and flight the certification
onboard incorrect capabilities it process that will
sensors. conditions may should have. lead to leaving
arise. the mind
structure to the
Stealth Mode Communication Integrating the
computer (test,
Communication must be emission
analysis, etc.).
provided in a control feature
special wave into the system
format with low is the biggest

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

L0 L1 L2
Avionics
Customer Airvehicle
Requirement
Requirements Requirements
Airframe
Requirement
Figure 12 Requirement Flow
Above are a few challenges for the 5th
generation aircraft. When developing an
architecture, the challenges are to be addressed
whilst endeavoring to satisfy customer
requirements.
Due to phased capability (Blocks) re-test and
re-certification may occur, ensuring that this is
limited is also a challenge.
Beside of this historical aircraft design
improvement, TurAF is planning to replace aging
F-16’s with a new fleet in 2030. On the other
hand, replaced ones’ will be interoperable with
F-35As which will be included in the TurAF
inventory. With the completion of the program
Turkey is expected to become one of the few
countries to acquire the necessary critical
technologies, engineering substructure and
production capability. Development of critical
sensor technologies especially radar (RF),
electro-optical / infrared (EO/IR) and electronic
warfare (EW) will be performed nationally
during the development program [1].
IV. REQUIREMENT FLOW
The requirement flows from the customer
Level 0 requirements to system and then
subsystem i.e. Level 1 and 2. (See Figure 12)
These system and subsystems are realized
based on their functions. Figure 13 gives an
example of the system to subsystem flow.
Figure 13 Military Aircraft Avionics Components [5]
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. CAPABILITY APPROACH
A. CAPABILITY DROP (BLOCKS)
Since fighter development programs are
very considerable in terms of budget, calendar
and scalability, staging is the most appropriate
and most frequently used method of planning.
This is no different in TF-X. The capability
drops for TF-X consists of:
 Block-0: Main capabilities necessary for
flight only, IOC 1.
 Block 1: Capabilities for particular mission
roles, IOC 2.
 Block 2: Full capability all defined mission
roles, FOC.
 Final Configuration Block: Advanced
capability for future defined mission roles.
B. ARCHITECTURE ALTERNATIVES FOR
BLOCK-0
The main purpose of Block-0 is focusing on
the safety of flight to succeed the first flight in a
planned schedule. In this context, it is aimed that
the avionics architecture designed for the first
block will fulfill the basic display,
communication, navigation and identification
capability. Mission avionics will be included in
subsequent blocks of design.
In consideration of the above assumptions,
two architecture alternatives have been created
for Block-0. For flight safety and fast solution,
design will be performed with COTS
equipment/systems. Subsystems used in both
avionics architecture alternatives are nearly the
same.
a. Architecture Alternative-Federated
Alternative-1 is a distinctive example of
federated architecture as shown in Figure 14.
Interfaces and data buses that are planned to use
are also depicted in the figure.
 Figure 14 Architecture Alternative-Federated
This alternative includes a WAD and HMD. Intercom system generates audio warnings
The WAD will be Primary Flight Display (PFD) with VS, Flight Control System (FCS) and
and therefore would need to be DAL A Avionics and Mission System (AMS)
hardware & software compliant. Information inputs.
displayed on the WAD include: - Navigation System, includes main
subsystems such as Air Data Computer
- System and Mission Display and (ADC), Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)
- Alerts. System, Radio Altitude (RADALT)
HMI requirements will be considered System, Global Navigation Satellite
throughout the design process. Other avionics System / Inertial Measurement System
systems for Block-0 include: (GNSS/INS), Identification Friend or Foe
(IFF) System, etc. to provide all flight
- Recording System, HMD and sensor critical navigation parameters to the pilot as
videos are recorded in a recording system altitude, speed, bearing, heading, distance,
for de-briefing and flight replay purposes. attitude, g values, angle of attack (AOA),
- Communication System, includes V/UHF etc. However, a dedicated bus is planned to
radios, intercom system and control panels. be used for the navigation system.

Figure 15 Architecture Alternative-IMA

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Apart from avionics subsystems, 3 other VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY
systems that are closely related to the Designing an avionics architecture for a
architecture are: next generation fighter is a complex feat. To
- Vehicle System (VS) - This includes manage the complexity a methodological
environmental control system, fuel system, approach is required, the Engineering Life
hydraulic system, landing gear, electrical Cycle approach provides this.
power system, auxiliary power unit, fire In this work, we highlight the main
protection system, ice protection system, challenges that the system engineer must
lighting system, crew escape system, consider. Technical, technology window,
pneumatic system, life support system etc. technology readiness, export license,
These systems have various interfaces with industrialization are all challenges to be
Vehicle System Computer (VSC) and addressed. The study also highlights that an
avionics subsystems. IMA has several advantages over a federated
- Flight Control System (FCS) - FCS has a architecture. It was also established that
Flight Control Computer (FCC). Separated capability drops allows us to deliver product
Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) and Air early albeit with limited capability. Future
Data System (ADS) have interface with the studies will revisit the conclusion reached in this
FCC to transmit air data parameters and study. This is best done when a higher level of
attitude information. maturity is achieved. Future studies will also
- Propulsion System (PS) – PS establishes include other capability drops for Blocks 1, 2
the engines’ control. All data related to and further.
engines will be transferred to AMS via PS
with a dedicated bus. REFERENCES
[1] “TF,” Turkish Aerospace. [Online].
b. Architecture Alternative-IMA
Available:
For the second alternative of Block-0, an https://www.tai.com.tr/en/product/milli-
IMA avionics architecture is studied, as shown muharip-ucak. [Accessed: 18-May-2019].
in Figure 15.
[2] L. Dormehl, “Defense giant BAE wants to
It includes a WAD that is fed by PU and a replace fighter jet controls with augmented
HMD. Unlike alternative 1, system process is reality,” digitaltrends, 09-Dec-2017.
handled within the PU.
[Online]. Available:
A. ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-
tech/bae-systems-augmented-reality-
TABLE 2 COMPARISON TABLE planes/. [Accessed: 2019].
Alternative Pros Cons
-Increased
[3] “Five Generations Of Jet Fighter Aircraft,”
-Reduced harness Air Power Development Center Bulletin,
complexity -Difficulty in Air Power Development Center, Jan-2012.
Federated
-Dedicated system upgrades
resources -Increased SWAP- [4] “Entered Inventory Airplanes,” Turkish Air
C
- Flexibility -Increased Force. [Online]. Available:
- Reduced complexity https://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/en-
SWaP-C2 -Limited resource us/Turkish_Air_Force/Our_History/Entere
IMA - Integrated sharing
control center -Difficult d_Inventory_Airplanes. [Accessed: 18-
- Decreased certification May-2019].
harness process
[5] “Aircraft in the Inventory,” Turkish Air
Force. [Online]. Available:
Considering the pros and cons in Table 2, https://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/en-
Alternative IMA has clear advantages over us/Turkish_Air_Force/Todays_Air_Force/
Alternative Federated. The most challenging Aircraft_in_the_Inventory. [Accessed: 18-
part of this solution is the certification process May-2019].
due to increased complexity.
[6] I. Moir, M. Jukes, and A. Seabridge,
Military avionics systems. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 2007.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on June 28,2020 at 01:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.