Comments on: Experts Tout Cost as Requirement Fix

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:39:22 +0000

From the view at the bottom of the food chain, the BUFF seems to have been a pretty good investment.

And that IS the most concoluted chart I’ve ever seen. Try viewing it all at once on your screen.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:41:48 +0000

It is funny, though, to watch people try to project "life cycle cost" for a military program. Imagine if someone had tried to predict the "life cycle cost" for the B-52, a "weapon system" that's more than 50 years old at this point...

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:25:22 +0000

Google is your friend:

https://acc.dau.mil/ifc/

This is direct from the Defense Acquisition University.

By: loggie20

loggie20 — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:29:45 +0000

The problem is that at M/S B no one has any idea what the Life Cycle Cost will be at any effective level of operations and support. From then on no one ever askes if the performance justifies the continued expenditure of the taxpayers’ money.

I never heard of an “Integrated Logistics Life Cycle Management Chart”, Life Cycle Management is not that convoluted, OSD has been trying to get Materiel Availability, Total Ownership Costs and Reliability considered on equal terms for years now. The problem is that it is too hard for the current management, so the solution is to get rid of the current management. The too hard to do is the cause of all the overruns and schedule delays. It is indeed a shame that a broke process is permitted to waste the taxpayers resources for year after year.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:30:55 +0000

We have too much help with cost overuns:
Congressional regulation so convoluted it makes your head spin (FAR).
Congressional plus-ups.
An Acquisition Workforce too small to manage the workload.
Contractors and military officers and civil servants jumping back and forth over their respective walls to argue one anothers cases.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:24:08 +0000

How do you propose to make cost a requirement? Typically, a good program has solid vetted requirements shortly before Milestone B which would require someone to sign up to a cost prior to a CDR occurring. OMB (independent) as well as all the services has their own cost modeling houses and we have to pass an Independent Cost Estimate at every milestone. So let me get this straight, all this complexity and bureaucracy has worked for us in the past so let’s get more of it?? Has anyone actually looked at the Integrated Logistics Life Cycle Management Chart? That is the most convoluted and complex chart in the world and we try to squeeze every system through it. That is why every system takes 5 times longer and costs 10 times as much as originally estimated. No wonder our systems cost so damn much, half of the cost is tied to a bureaucracy that is failing to perform anyway and we want to add some more.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:40:52 +0000

“Sullivan also criticizes DoD’s continuation of the Cold War practice of divvying up money equally among the services, “even though DoD’s strategic environment and warfighting needs have changed dramatically in recent years.” ”

This is certainly true. The original purpose of MILSATCOM was to allow Air Force One to send launch orders to Polaris subs and B-52 bases. However, it is now being at least 60% used by Army troops on the ground–but USAF still manages the program, writes the requirements, spends the money. Why is it being done that way? Why are the direct users of the system not being involved in its procurement?