The Ship Model Forum

(This thread is highly related to the neighbor thread on privatization).

An article published in this month's USNI Proceedings revisits an article from 1982 by then - Martin Marietta executive Norman Augustine, who demonstrated that military aircraft and equipment costs had both grown at exponential rates and much faster than the budget of the DoD.

A plot of the costs of significant aircraft from the Wright Model-A to the F-35 demonstrate the exponential curve is still highly accurate (I will supply the graphs later). Another graph demonstrates the equation is valid for aircraft carriers.

This leads to some interesting problems. If trends continue, the cost of 1 x F-35 will exceed the entire projected defense budget before the year 2050, and more than the GDP shortly after the dawn of the next century!

He identifies entering into acquisition before identification of the major technical issues (ala F-35) as one of the prime problems leading to the "Augustine Curve". He identifies a few remedies, but none are pleasant. Requirements must be frozen at some reasonably early point in the process. Contractors cannot promise more than they can deliver on the price. Procurement personnel should be fighters, with only a tightly limited cadre of politicians involved, somewhat as a board of directors. Make program managers' continuing service subject only to the success of their project. Restrict post service employment at the offices of contractors.

These proposals seem logical. the current relationship of keeping the canaries in the cat kennel is absurd. Program directors ought to be watchdogs of the vendor, not future employees.

A very interesting article. I recommend a visit to the library to read it.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

These are absurd projections. It's like projecting the exponential growth of rats and concluding that by AD 2946, the total mass of rats on the planet will exceed the total mass of the sun.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Yeah, I know. It's meant to be an attention grabber. It is amazing how expensive these machines have become and how things like the F-35 and LCS are ordered (and built) while they still work on the specification. How is that possible?

I am given to understand there are no "mission modules" as yet for the LCS. They've built the ship and one of it's principle weapons is empty space that they still don't know what to do with.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

We've also seen a similar trend in private Yard ( I.E. Electric Boat which is a United Technoligies Company) costs going unchecked with new construction Submarines .. The higher than expected or approved costs have cancelled future Seawolfs and many more of the Virginias will be constructed in Gov't yards as a result. I think historicly EB has shown it is wise enough to check costs on their own knowing full well that the reduced requirement for new construction Boats can be meet by the Gov't yards. Unfortunitly the US Gov't doesn't have that option with aircraft and other costly weapons production.

_________________
"When you shoot at a Destroyer and miss. It's like hit'in a wildcat in the A-- with a banjo" !
Lt. Joe Willingham Skipper USS Tautog SS-199

Life is Good/ DBF
Walt

I think with aircraft it's the kitchen sink attitude. They want a stealthy bird that can do daylight and all weather superiority, hang a TARPS pod, carry JDAMS and HARMS, and a half-dozen other features. When you're done you've built a plane that costs as much as a destroyer, so you have to assume it will last as long as one, too.

Would the A-4 or the F-8 be built in today's atmosphere? NO!

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The way things seem to be going, we are either headed towards a global disarmament utopia, or a Weimar Republic hyper inflation stone age.


All kidding aside, maybe we should do like the British did post-war. That is to say maintain a fleet of contemporary aircraft, keep them updated with the latest add-on gadgets and careful maintenance, keep the production lines open to cover attrition and, finally, keep our tech edge honed by building concept prototypes.

Jack

One of the real problems for the USA is this method of aircraft purchase has priced the third world out of aircraft sales. The French must be the only sellers in that market now....

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Don't forget China and Russia.

It seems that we forgot that we were in business.

Isn't lack of competition a big factor is wasteful spending. Like how many compete to design and build an aircraft, tank or sub. And if there is more than one company bidding on a project, how many corporate board members share interests in the other company. How many ex-military men work for the companies that they used to give contracts to. If America is going to turn itself around from rapid decline, we best find a way to get a free market back into defense contracts. You look at what American industry did in WWII and early cold war, compare it to today and the rot is clearly evident. More money? Like are we getting any value now for spending more than the rest of the world combined? Military spending has taken on the worst aspects of government waste and fraud, only the private companies are feeding off of a system out of control. My two cents . After all I am paying for it with my taxes and kids!

Bob B.

I am a firm believer in SOME negative aspects of the old Eisenhower "military/Industrial complex"

HOWEVER, in defence of the costs, defence inflation has been way above normal inflation for decades.

In the maritime sphere, Philip Pugh did a seminal work "The Cost of Sea Power" which looked at British 20th century naval costs and reasons for it. See :-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cost-Sea-Power- ... 962&sr=1-6

More recently, there is a book recently out (which I have not read) which PRESUMABLY covers the same area from a more modern US point of view :-

Why Has the Cost of Navy Ships Risen?: A Macroscopic Examination of the Trends in U.S. Naval Ship Costs Over the Past Several Decades
(Paperback) - by Mark V. Arena (Author), Irv Blickstein (Author), Obaid Younossi (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Cost-Navy-S ... 035&sr=1-5



.

It occured to me long ago that almost literally we can't afford warfare any more. Back in WWII I would imagine that a B17 could cause more monetary damage than the plane and payload cost.

Nowadays it's hard to see the same value-for-the-bang in modern weapon systems, unless you go nuke. Does the 1,000 lb warhead on a conventional Tomahawk really cause more damage that the cost of delivering it on target? I seriously wonder. I suppose it depends on the target value.

But asymmetric warfare shows that when the other guy can kill you for a lot less money that you can kill him, there's a basic disconnect going on. If you Tomahawk a computer factory or airfield that's one thing- Tomahawking a cave complex or a village comound is something else.

John Keegan postulated much the same thought a while back, I think at the end of The History of Warfare.

_________________
Gerard>
Snohomish, WA USA
If you don't know the definition of erudite, you're not.

Matthew Weigelt, (Washington Technology) quoted Michael Sullivan the GAO director of acquisition and sourcing management “Bonuses offer incentives for companies to take on those enormous projects while the government assumes the risk, no contractor would take on that risk under a fixed-price contract.”
Quoting again from Mr. Weigelt’s article; “James Finley, deputy undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and technology, said DOD has moved away from firm fixed-price contracts to cost-plus contracts, which pay companies for their work and offer bonuses or incentive fees to motivate firms to bid on large jobs.” “However, lawmakers argue that companies receive the bonuses even when they fail.”
The title of this thread “US DoD on glide path to bankruptcy.” Well technically speaking the DoD goes bankrupt each year anyway. Towards the end of every fiscal year, the DoD technically shuts down till a new budget is passed in Congress and funds are made available to continue operations. I remember one year during Nixon we went without pay (Active Duty) until Congress and the President agreed on a budget.
I do agree with most of the posters here that DoD spending is way out of hand. Phil Gollin mentioned the "military/Industrial complex” Eisenhower speech in his thread, which predicted the very thing we are now faced with, a genie out of the bottle that no one can put back in.

One great thing about the DoD, when you work for a company (i.e. US Government) that prints it’s own money you will never run short….

_________________
"Only two sailors, in my experience, never ran aground. One never left
port and the other was an atrocious liar."
-Don Bamford

Tomahawk is certainly one of the most expensive means of putting high explosives on target. The problem the USA faces with warfare is safety in the target area. Most of the recent costs have gone into protecting the pilots and the innocent civilians in theatre. If our enemies were similarly concerned, their weapons would be similarly expensive (or at least in the ball park, like Russian or European systems).

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I like the example of the tank - a balance of armour, fire power, and speed....but also PRODUCABILITY.
Seems we ignor some important historical lessons.

Shermans and T-34s overwhelmed Panthers and Tigers..... LCS? How will this hyper-expensive ship fare in a sea fight ? Probably not as well as Tigers and Panthers did against Shermans and T-34s.

_________________
No Quarter Asked - None Given

Admirals & sailors do not like to go to sea on inferior ships with the concomittant prospect of going down with the same inferior ships. They prefer ships that are overprotected & thus theoretically "unsinkable" & thus, if necessary, overpriced. It is human nature, I guess. I can't blame them.

It seems there should be a reasonably simple solution to the aircraft problem.

!. Recognize that there is nothing wrong with having aircraft dedicated to a specific range of missions. Every time we attempt to "save money" by building a generic combat plane that can handle all kinds of missions, we wind up with an overpriced, over engineered, overweight clunker that can still only perform one mission really well and a medicore job of doing everything else.

2. Recognize that it is pointless to replace a proven design that can still do its job well for the sake of change. It's a miracle the B-52's are still in the inventory. Why replace a world-class aircraft like the P-3?

3. What is wrong with demanding competing firms produce prototypes for competitive testing? If the companies want the contract, let them foot the costs of the prototypes and compare them head-to-head in performance tests.

4. How about specifying the amount of cost overrun that will be tolerated? The first time a contractor is stuck with a bunch of aircraft he can't sell because he can't meet the contract price will be the last time.

5. Don't buy a bunch of competing designs that all do the same thing in order to "spread the business around". Far better to order different planes designed for different jobs from a variety of contractors.

6.Recognize that there are basic differences between planes designed for use from land bases and those designed for carrier operation. If you are using carrier aircraft from land bases exclusively (as when the USAF uses a design intended for Navy use), they are paying too much for too much aircraft.

7. Learn from the fiascos of the past. Remember the TFX/F111? An outsized fighter-bomber designed for both carrier operation and land bases. Supposed to be a fighter. Turned out to be only a decent medium bomber and ECW aircraft.

8. Not enough domestic contractors left because the Government allowed too many mergers? Open the bidding up to foreign companies from friendly nations.

End of Rant.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail

As usual, Les is on target.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

If one does not fully understand the problem, then the chances are any reasonably simple solution one comes up with would crash and burn when it runs into those parts of the problem one does not understand.



It is usually cheaper to have a few aircraft able to do many jobs, mostly in a half assed way, than to have many different types of aircraft each dedicated to a few jobs. Given the overwhelming superiority in both sophistication and expertise of the American aeronautical industry compare to those of likely opponents, half assed jobs by American standard is usually equal or superior to a dedicated effort by potential opponents.

Furthermore, the reason why many aircraft that originated as a dedicated tool for a specific missions often end up doing generic combat missions is because one could not forecast combating thinking with sufficient accuracy to ensure the narrow role for which a combat aircraft is being dedicated to still exists within the evolving combat doctrine of the Airforce when the aircraft sees squadron service. Example of this includes the F-16, for which misguided bleetings about its loss of focus on its original clear weather, visual range, counter-air role is still heard. It lost focus on that role because that role no longer exists. It's hard to stay focused on what has vanished.


It is not always pointless. In fact, in the specific instances you are probably thinking of, it is likely to be far from clearly pointless. Existing aircraft may do its job well now, but for how much longer? What is the return one receives by funding existing aircraft to the very end of its possible usefulness compared to shifting the funding to a new aircraft that will certainly go on serving for much longer?



What do you think is the cost of capital for a company that goes out and tries to borrow, say 5 billion dollars, to build one or more prototype with the knowledge that there is 2 in 3 chance that this venture will yield 0 future income?



Futile gesture. You simply move goal post from on budget to budget + fixed overrun. When the fixed overrun is exhausted, he would simply do exactly what he had deem previously when the original budget would be exhausted. He would mobilize his lobby in congress by painting typically exaggerated picture of how vital this new plane really is for the security of your daughter's prom night, and how it was unreasonable to demand accurate forecasts of the real costs of such a "transformational" aircraft. The air force would would undoubtedly also be underwritting.



Do we do that?


See item 1



Not clear if that is usually the case, especially if the alternative is to duplicate much of the development cost the Navy has already incurred.



Of course we learn from the fiascoes from the past. We learn extremely well. How else can we repeat them so exactly each time?




Not until America starts to think of herself as just one of many rather than 1st amongst nations. Everything says the majority of Americans would overwhelmingly prefer to continue to think in terms of American exceptionalism rather than go for the tangible benefits of not thinking in that manner.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Chuck,

I'm sure the defense contractors would agree with your arguements, but I'm not so sure anyone else would. When the hogs are feeding at the trough, there is little room for common sense.

Which do you think would make the most effective combat aircraft? One that could do a limited range of tasks very well, or one that can perform a lot of roles in a "half-assed" (your term) way. How would you feel about it if your job involved flying that "half-assed" aircraft? Or if your son or daughter did?

It has to be a fluke that the B-52 is still around. This design was so good and so adaptable that it could last 50 years with airframe stiffening and engine upgrades. Apparently, enough money was to be made by refitting them that outright replacement wasn't necessary. With the type of wars we seem to be always fighting these days, the demand for a flying dump truck like the B-52 (or the Tu-95) remains.

If the contractor has to foot the R&D costs, and construction costs of a few prototypes in order to get a contract, so what?
It may be the only thing that encourages them to keep the price down. In any other industry, this would be considered part of the cost of doing business.

I was serious about needing to hold to a price line. The first time a contractor is stuck with a few billion dollar's worth of unsalable aircraft will really be the last time.

Buying competing designs to do the same thing? Business as usual. From attack helicopters to transports.

The Navy (or the Air Force) should not be paying the development costs, at least for the prototype. As I said before, this should be a cost of doing business. Cover it in the bid, but remember, bid too high and you don't get the contract.

If a service wants to adapt a plane to a job it wasn't originally designed to do, then I can see that service paying for R&D for that new role.

We need to recognize that there are excellent aircraft being built in friendly countries that ought to be competing for our contracts. The planes purchased this way are few now, but many could be built here under license if country of manufacture is a political consideration.

I agree that we must have learned well from those past fiascos in order to be repeating them so well.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail

No business in it's right mind would build an aircraft on which the specifications are not fixed. Same for ships. The Navy needs to get it's act together.

The biggest savings on multimission aircraft is in maintenance and the issues related thereto.

It is simpler to get the specification complete for a single mission aircraft and get it into production. The burden then is on the Navy to keep a more complex maintenance and parts stream operating across the world.

The question is, if you can never actually build the multimission aircraft or ship because the complexities so delay delivery and increase costs that it is either canceled by Congress, the President or is hopelessly compromised by the various modifications over it's design life then it is time to build a simpler, single mission product and put it to sea.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)