Category: Defense Procurement

Classics in Congressional Oversight of Defense Procurement

No Comments

I have no clue why I missed this the first time, but I came across Steve Trimble’s Flight International blog post, and I realized that this is a classic of its kind.

Truth be told, Congressional oversight of defense procurement is not a particularly broad category, but this classic. Keith Olbermann should be notified.

The background: the USAF and Army aviation are both purchasing same cargo aircraft to do transport to austere airfields, the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), and the aircraft selected was the Alenia C-27J.

It’s basically to serve the role as the C-130’s little brother, see pic:

The problem is that their budgets Army is saying that it will cost $30 million a pop, and the USAF is claiming that it will cost $60 million a pop.

Obviously something is very very wrong here. While differences in cost between services can result from differences in how life cycle costs are viewed, with one service looking to assign more of the lifetime costs to the initial purchase price than the other, a difference of 100% simply does not pass the smell test.

There are two obvious reasons that this might happen:

  • That one service is attempting to bring unrelated budget items in the procurement.
  • That one service is attempting to kill or minimize the purchase.

Given that this is a joint program between the USAF and the US Army, my money would be on both. They like bigger planes, and the thought of their sharing a program with the Army must give them the hives.

So Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) notices this discrepency, and decides to ask the USAF acquisition chief, Sue Payton, about this.

In any case, here is the meat of the exchange:

REP. ABERCROMBIE: Ms. Payton, you are right on the edge of getting into the Blues Brothers.

MS. PAYTON: Sorry sir, I don’t mean to be there. I —

REP. ABERCROMBIE: That’s when — when Jake says, Bill, but you lied to us about the band. They lied to me when I was in prison about the band. You haven’t kept the band together. He goes, I never lied to you. I bullsh$#ted you a little bit, but I never lied to you.

MS. PAYTON: Sir, I would never give any misinformation —

REP. ABERCROMBIE: No, you are saying that the Army is doing that.

MS. PAYTON: No, sir. I believe that —

REP. ABERCROMBIE: You are trying to finesse us. You are telling me they’ve got a cost that they know about, but they are not telling us about it, and are trying to pretend their unit cost and given information to us is the same as your unit cost, and they know better.

(Emphasis mine)

Somewhere out there, John Belushi is smiling.

You can see the rest of the exchange here, and Ms. Payton gets the worst of the exchange.

Only $600 Million

No Comments

This does appear to be a triumph of defense procurement.

$600 million is the price tag for the upgrade on the Gripen, where they replace the RM 12 (F404 derivative) with a GE F414G, giving about 25% more thrust, strengthen and relocate the landing gear, add more fuel, add two hard points for weapons carriage, and offer an AESA radar (though the radar seems to be an extra cost option).

While not quite as extensive as the F/A-18 C/D to F/A-18 E/F upgrade, the fuselage and wing profiles are nearly unchanged, the fact that they are doing this upgrade for something around the cost of a dozen aircraft is amazing.

My emotions mirror Bill Sweetman’s:

The whole deal cost the Swedish government – are you sitting down? – the equivalent of $600 million. That’s a little over half what the US will spend in one year on putting radios and plush carpets in the Presidential helicopter, and about the same as one year’s R&D on F-22 upgrades. And we wonder why we can’t afford our defense needs.

I’ve been invited to speak at next week’s event in Linkoping, and will take the opportunity to ask the Swedes how they did it.

Navy Ship Building Programs Face Budget Scrutiny

No Comments

It looks like there are a couple of very prominent targets for law makers looking to pay for Iraq, the DDG-1000, and MPF-F.

The DDG-1000, aka the Zumwalt class destroyer, is a very large, about 14,500 tons displacement (the Arleigh Burkes in service are about 8,500 tons, and the Ticonderoga class cruisers are only about 10,000 tons). It’s also very expensive, and as a result, the proposed buy has been cut from 32 ships to 7.

It is very much a product of the US Navy’s big ship fixation. It now looks to cost about 5x as much as the Burkes, and prices are still rising, and the benefits of a larger ship are largely outweighed by the disadvantages of having fewer ships.

Simply put, you cover less area with fewer ships, though the Maine delegation will certainly fight hard for these, as will Mississippi, as they will likely be manufactured at Bath Iron Works in Maine and Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.

The MPF-F (Maritime Prepositioning Force-Future) is basically an amphibious invasion fleet that will be standing ready around the clock:

But Democratic leaders of the House and Senate seapower subcommittees are discussing cutting their authorizations for the destroyer program to redirect funds elsewhere, and they have notably complained about shifting MPF-F definitions to a degree that they seem less enthusiastic about them than Littoral Combat Ships, for instance, which also have experienced programmatic troubles but appear to continue to enjoy congressional backing.

“I am concerned with the plans for the so called Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) commonly known as the MPF(F),” House seapower chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said. “I am not convinced that the Navy and Marine Corps are in sync with the requirements for this force and I am not sure that the Navy has a reasonable plan to build these ships efficiently,” he said last month.

This is basically a way of saying that he does not think that the Navy has its sh%$ together on what it really needs from this.

My take is that the DDG-1000 is arguably inferior and more expensive solution to buying more Burkes, and I’m not sure that investing in “amphibious invasion fleets in a box” is something our current budget realities can support.

British Court Says Prince Bandar Bribery Probe Closure Illegal

No Comments

It appears that Prince Bandar, nicknamed “Bandar Bush” for his closeness to the Bush clan, may not have been quite as successful as he though in shutting down the bribery investigation against him.

The basic deal is that Bandar netted billions of dollars (a quick Google shows £1 billion, you do the math) in bogus “consulting fees” in order to “facilitate” the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal.

The Serious Fraud Organization was looking into the deal, and was near to getting Swiss bank account information, when Tony Blair shut it down, probably there was a threat that the sales of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons would be canceled if there were further investigations.

The OECD, an international corruption watchdog, condemned the termination of the investigation.

It’s unclear from the story whether this ruling means that the investigation will restart, but Labour is taking no chances, they have a draft law in Parliament that would allow, “an Attorney General to close down such investigations as he or she saw fit on ‘national security’ grounds”.

More Tanker Fun

No Comments

Well, in the latest bit of unmitigated bullsh&# to spew forth from Seattle Chicago, boeing is now claiming that the USAF had worries about the refueling boom, but covered these concerns up.

McDonnel Douglas had no problem whatsoever coming up with their own boom in the 1970s, and EADS is already working on one for the Australians, and it’s already flying.

Unmitigated crap.

We have a little one paragraph blurb in Aviation Week‘s Newsbreaks section (subscription required):

A factor that won the U.S. Air Force replacement tanker program for Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 may have operational repercussions, say U.S. Air Force critics. The KC-45’s ability to carry cargo and passengers is being used to validate the need for production of fewer C-17 transports. But a long-time operations expert says USAF will now be required to assign the tanker “for too many missions” because of its “significant strategic airlift capability,” he says. “It’s a convenient argument to kill the C-17, but it also means they’re going to try to use the tanker for everything under the Sun.”

Let’s see, they are claiming that there will be “operational repercussions” because the aircraft is too capable. That’s like claiming that you are too rich, or there is too much chocolate.

What they are really saying is that when choosing an airframe for the basis of the tanker, a 767 or a shortened 777, they went with the 767 because it did a better job of protecting the C-17 production line.

Tanker Update

No Comments

In congressional testimony before the House Armed Services, Sue Payton, Air Force under secretary for acquisition, was asked if asked if additional credit was given in the process for exceeding the contract minimums. Her response was that the minimums were just that, minimums.

If you did not meet the minimums, your bid would not be accepted, but that, “It was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold”.

Much of the crux of Boeing’s complaint is that this is irregular. It is not. I have read hundreds of requirements for military programs, and the overwhelmingly majority of them have a “threshold” (minimum), and an “objective” (good to have).

This has been a part of the procurement process for years, and to the degree that Boeing is using it for a challenge, this is completely bogus.

F22 Showing Itself to be a Maintenance Pig

No Comments

As Bill Sweetman Notes, the F-22 is not even close to achieving its desired maintenance goals:

  • The mean time between maintenance intervals is less than one hour.
  • That number is half what it should have been at the end of system development and demonstration, in December 2005.
  • It’s one-third of the “mature” goal, which is supposed to be achieved in 100,000 operational flying hours, in 2010.
  • It hasn’t improved in the past year.

This is not academic. Last year, there was a class-A mishap when an F-22 sucked in a piece of RAM and trashed an engine.

The wild blue yonder boys seem determined to innovate themselves out of any meaningful military capability.

KC-45 Flown to Dresden for Tanker Mods

No Comments

Yep, EADS has already delivered the first aircraft, D-1, to Dresden for modifications to full KC-45 status.

Doubtless, this is on hold because of the challenge, but note that Airbus had the airframe ready to fly to an outfitting location, and Boeing’s “Frankenplane” would not be cutting metal for months.

Boeing simply got beat like a ten dollar hooker* on this one.

Pictures below.



*My apologies for comparing a multi-billion dollar defense contractor to a cheap whore†.
†Sorry, wasn’t clear there. I was apologizing to the whore.

USAF Looking for C-5 Replacement

No Comments

The USAF just put in a request for a potential C-5 replacement

This is a special notice open to U.S. industry requesting information on project plans and overall feasibility of designing, fabricating and flying a full-scale, aero-structural technology demonstrator of an advanced, long-range transport concept in approximately 36 months. Responses are requested to provide information on four key aspects of the demonstrator project: (1) a description of the advanced aircraft concept (2) a description of the flight demonstrator and how it will establish proof-of-concept for the objective system (3) a project plan to go from demonstrator design to flight in 36 months (4) discussion of featured, enabling technologies for the objective system concept and risk reduction strategies necessary to validate them. The objective of this RFI is to identify potential flight demonstrator options and feasible program plans that will rapidly accelerate technology readiness level (TRL) growth of advanced transport system concepts and/or critical component technologies without being constrained by a formal acquisition program or requirement. Interested offerors may view and/or download the full Request for Information (RFI) by accessing the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) homepage at http://www.fbo.gov. Direct questions to Mr. Barth Shenk, AFRL/RBOT, (937) 255-8343.”

They want this in 36 months?!?!?!? Well, whoever wants to make the bid and better have Antonov on their speed dial. Because the AN-124 is the only thing out there that could fulfill the requirements and be flying in 36 months.

The A380 comes close, but without a rear cargo door, and a low wing that will suck debris off austere fields, there are some problems with that.

The Unsinkable BUFF

No Comments

It appears that the USAF is looking to change its draw down on B-52s, with 76, as opposed to 56.

Their justification is that they want some of the B-52s dedicated to nuclear strike, as opposed to swapping squadrons in and out of the service, on the theory that they won’t do stupid stuff like sending detonators to Taiwan, or flying live missiles by mistake.

Once again, the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat F&^%er) is being tasked to pull the Air Force brass’s ass out of a fire.

More tanker

No Comments

Both the USAF and Northrop Grumman are requesting that the Boeing Challenge be rejected, see here, here, and here.

Of more import is the fact that the UK just signed a contract for $13 billion for A330 tankers. Note that the contract is different, as it is to replace the RAF’s Lockheed TriStar and Vickers VC10s, and the former are large, as opposed to medium tankers, but it points to a trend.

I think that Boeing is out of the tanker business for the next 10 years, until the money is found to replace the KC-10 tankers.

Zumwalt in Trouble

No Comments

The DDG-1000 class ships are losing Congressional support, with Rep. Murtha proposing that they be delayed for other needs.

There were originally supposed to be 24 of these, then 7, and now 2, and they are being delayed, and the price has gone through the roof, with it now being quoted at $3 billion each, with realistic estimates putting it at $5 billion.

It’s a bad program. 80%+ of any surface combatant’s benefits are simply a product of their being afloat and available, so going with what are very large boats and fewer numbers gets fewer boats in the water, and this does is not outweighed by the additional capabilities of the larger boats.

The problem is that the US Navy has a fixation on size.

Why Yes, I did Work on This!

No Comments

I came across this article on the USMC putting prognostics on its vehicles, and it turns oout that it’s yet another field of study that I’ve applied my engineering skills to.

Specifically the Marines are installing the Embedded Platform Logistics System (EPLS), which works by determining the actual condition of the equipment, as opposed to implementing a fixed maintenance/replacement schedule by using sensors on the equipment and computer algorithms to determine when components are wearing out.

When I was working on the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), now called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), it was primarily on a prognostics demonstration for the landing craft.

It was a nice job, with a nice boss (Hi Dave), but it was the commute from hell (75 miles through the heart of DC), and the scope of the program was being increasingly reduced, and I figured that it was not too long before I would be de-scoped, so I found something with what was then United Defense.

The KC-X Tanker, The Musical

No Comments

It appears that we’ve got our first astroturf, Tankerblog.com, which has been anonymously registered, where they brethlessly reveal that A330 tanker cannot refuel the V-22, while the 767 could.

The blog describes itself as, “The blog is moderated by Mike Reilly who spends his days at the Center for Security Policy and a bipartisan group of legislative assistants who spend their days, and most nights, working on Capitol Hill.”

These “staffers” are from the Seattle no doubt, and the CSP has among it members, Richard Perle, Douglas J. Feith, , Frank Gaffney – Project for the New American Century, Monica Crowley and , Laura Ingraham. (You can get a line on their right wing nut supporters here)

No reasons given for why the difference, and in the real world, if refueling were needed it would be done by a KC-130 turboprop, since using a jet to refuel a turboprop that has to operate below 15k feet because it is not pressurized is just nuts.

A bit of humor at this “blog” though, they have a poll on whether congress should stop the deal, and the pro EADS sides in winning.Tanker War Blog, unnamed bipartasin staffers in congress, from Washington state, no doubt. http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/ look at their poll…good yucks.

The kicker is that Northrop Grumman says it can refuel the V-22, “said on Monday its aerial tanker based on the Airbus A330 could refuel the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft flown by the Marine Corps.”

Nice to see some defense procurement related humor.

In the meantime, we are starting to see people worrying that Congress will go xenophobic, and queer the contract which would threaten weapons sales in Europe. *cough* JSF *cough*

As to what Boeing is arguing about, it appears that a lot of this is the spacing between wingtips while parked. The USAF reduced this on the basis of what had actually observed.

Additionally, Boeing complained that the Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System (Cmarps) system which was used to develop operational scenarios for the bidding, was something that NG was more familiar with, but seeing as how the software is over 20 years old, I think that this is more another example of how Boeing was being petulant in the bid process.

Aviation Week (subscription required) also lists the following issues:

  • The Air Force added a “receptacle credit” for the capability of receiving as well as offloading fuel. Should have been there from the start, but it’s a clearly a positive capability.
  • Changed its assessment of the pavement thickness/strength at airports used in the mission modeling, allowing more A330s to be parked.
  • There was a change in ground turnaround time, which was then, “fixed for both competitors at 4 hr., 15 min.

For what it’s worth, Airbus tanker is already in test, see picture:

There are 767 tankers flying, but they are substantially different from what was pitched to the USAF.

V-22 AWACS

No Comments

It’s called the Tactical Organic Sensing System (TOSS), though Boeing is trying to change the rather unfortunate name.

One wag suggested that the radar be named Cerberus Advanced Battlespace Extension Radar (CABER).

This may very well be a winner for the various operators of V/STOL carriers, with the V-22 having better persistence and altitude performance than a helicopter based solution.

The aperture (antenna) size does appear a bit small, though it will be at least as good as the existing Sea King ASaC7.

XM360 Gun for MCS Variant of the Future Combat System

No Comments

While I think that the entire manned vehicle portion of the Future Combat System is a waste*, there are some technologies that look to be interesting from a military perspective.

Case in point, the lightweight XM360 120mm gun for the MCS (Tank) variant of the FCS-MGV†.

It’s about a ton lighter than the 120mm gun used on the Abrams, with significant reductions in recoil, both due to a more effective recoil system, and because it uses a muzzle break that is compatible with sabot rounds.

It achieves the weight savings through a high strength steel barrell with a composite wrapping to keep tension on the barrel, and by using largely titanium components in the recoil assembly, much like the lightweight towed M777 155mm howitzer.

Of interest, the gun is also capable of indirect fire out to 12 km, which would be an improvement on M256 used on the Abrams, which does not have this capability.

Image courtesy of Wiki.

*Full disclosure, I worked on the Future Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle, FRMV, “wrecker” variant from 2003-2006 at United Defense (later BAE Systems after the Carlyle Group sold me to buy Dunkin Donuts).
†Future Combat Systems-Manned Ground Vehicle. These are the ones that are the tanks and APCs. As opposed to the various unnmanned vehicles, etc. that form the full FCS.