Buy THAAD, Get Warranty

Buy THAAD, Get Warranty

When you buy a car, usually one of a family’s most expensive purchases, you get a warranty if it’s new or “certified.”

When the Pentagon buys weapons it rarely gets any kind of warranty. After all, these are complex systems, using advanced technology and they are, well, going to be used in war zones. It’s hard enough to get insurance as a war correspondent for your own self. A warranty on a tank or on body armor would be mighty hard to convince anyone to issue.

So when the head of the Missile Defense Agency told reporters that Lockheed will offer a warranty on the THAAD anti-missile system we could barely swallow our applewood bacon. Lt Gen. Patrick O’Reilly said he was also withholding a $419 million production contract until Lockheed demonstrates a safety switch built by subcontractor Moog will work as designed. It’s a pretty important device, meant to stop accidental launches. And, as O Reilly noted, it is built into the system at the beginning of the production line, so you can’t start the line in hopes the problem is addressed before the rest of the system makes it down the line.


The first international customer to get THAAD, the United Arab Emirates, plans to buy as much as $7 billion worth of the system and has been informed of the problems, O’Reilly said. He indicated that the Arab government is understanding.

These actions are symptoms of at least three factors afflicting the defense industry and the Pentagon. As several senior Pentagon acquisition officials have said in the last year, quality control has grown into a serious issue for prime contractors and their subs. Combine that with the painful budget crunch that seems to grow heavier with each passing month and you’ve got a Pentagon that feels empowered to squeeze contractors as hard as it can in pursuit of cost savings and to enforce contracts. And Lockheed Martin, THAAD’s maker, is willing to do a great deal to preserve revenue from the F-35 program and giving a warranty on another important program probably looked like a good and innovative way to keep the Pentagon happy. Warranties are unlikely to become a standard feature of most weapon systems, but it’s fair to say that companies are likely to show themselves much more flexible in their dealings with the government than has been the case since Sept. 11, 2001.

Join the Conversation

Very interesting. Commendable move by Lockheed I suppose. I just wish they would offer a similar warranty if the F-35 does not meet weight goals.

To the poster CharlesHouston :

You wrote: “People complain incessantly about government specifications — but a well written spec is far better than any warranty.”

What’s the mutual exclusivity between specifications and warranties? If you’re good enough to build the best, why don’t you contractually assume / assure such competence?

You know that is not happening.

Unfortunately you cant get 100% acceptance on everything the government buys, missiles and rockets are one of those batch type items ( as is most electronics — food — clothing — ammo — small arms ). Granted a lot of the time after a long drawn out process we can make the contractor take back the bad parts, but a lot of the times we get stuck with the bill and have to pay for replacements (especialy if it was assembled with off the shelf parts/ COTS items). Problem with the warranty is they usualy have time limits that expire long before you know you have a bad bunch of items (especialy in the ordnance world). If its not a 100% lifetime warranty, then its no good to us in reality.

For many items (aircraft, vehicles, etc) the contract has Sustaining Engineering built in, so the contractor does on site maintenance, etc. This is sort of a warranty but there is a negotiated price for it. But specifications duplicate most of what a warranty would do — there is no need for both.

I can’t think of anything where all delivered products are tested — before acceptance. When I worked in maintenance (at an Air Logistics Center in Oklahoma) we did test systems after installation. All testing is done on a subset of the delivered systems. Some small number are tested to failure but most see acceptance testing and then are released into the general population of available ship sets.

It varies depending on the type of equipment, a lot of ordnace and avaition items and electronics go through a number of 100% inspections where you think you would find all the issues, but you would be supprised after all of those inspections we find issues during LOT acceptance which will allow us to reject the entire production LOT. But with single source items such as aircraft — all up round missiles –vehicles and such its like a 100 point inspection for accept reject on each item. Neeedless to say many times it gets gaffed off or the responsibility given to the contractor due to lack of QA personnel, especialy at COCO operations. Our system really needs an overhaul and more people put in the right places rather than sitting on thier duffs in offices 100 miles away.

Poor QC? That’s what happens when everybody wears 5 hats.

Recall that inspections are not the same as testing! If all ammo was tested, we wouldn’t have any left. All we do is inspect it, normally a sample of each lot. You can assign mandatory inspection points where, if a product meets it, you accept it. Some things (aircraft for instance) have MIPs so that each product is inspected. And they have acceptance flight checks, etc. But those items are not all tested.
COCO? Do you mean Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) such as the Fort Worth General Dynamics plant?

The warranty will not be worth the paper it is written on.
Lockheed will just go and whine to their congressmen, who will pressure DoD to drop the issue and the taxpayer gets stuck again.
A warranty only works when all have credibility and accountability. No one is accountable and therefore have no credibility.
We need to get the DoD engineers and scientists working for the taxpayer and not the Lockheed’s. We need to know we have educated buyers on our side. Like the old days (back in 1990’s).
Now we have marketing and history majors running major technical programs.

This story and the comments seem to miss the point that guided weapons have had tough warranty provisions for more than 20 years.

Some might remember the story in 91 of guided weapon fragment in the news from Baghdad. The fragment said something like, “Produced by Texas Instruments, in case of problems return to Lewisville Texas for warrany repair.

Contractor Owned & Operated (usualy visited by a DCMA rep a couple times a month to sign acceptance, rarely has any full time govt oversight). Most GOCO’s have a limitted full time govt staff.

To the poster CharlesHouston:

You wrote: “…the contractor does on site maintenance, etc. This is sort of a warranty…”

“Maintenance” or repair, even after a few hours of normal use? An arms manufacturer shouldn’t offer ANYTHING for sale unless it has been thoroughly tested (prototypes) and deemed to be
1) functional,
2) safe (except for the receiving end)
and
3) durable.
Otherwise this object becomes like one of those estatal infrastructures that are perpetually half closed down for construction, one year after their inauguration (airports, grand architecture, city streets, etc.) : A charade!

I don’t understand the underlying assumption of everybody’s complaints here: WHO keeps the U.S. Armed Forces from including
1) a longer minimum life-span (for example… a MINIMALLY REASONABLE life-span!)
2) a higher MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE of defective parts, or of defective products (for bulk goods like ammunition etc.)
in its specifications / requirements?

Another suggestion: Couldn’t a force-wide demand for warranties cover at least
1) all products that are not to be used in shooting wars (still a pretty percentage of the U.S. Armed Forces’ inventory),
or cover simply
2) ALL products, UNTIL they are sent into a fight?
Or cover at VERY VERY LEAST
3) SIMPLY ALL UNUSED items, UNTIL they are unpacked (for example strategic reserves of spare parts stored in depots, like engines and electronics etc., that were found to be defective) ?

Aren’t there any lawyers involved in writing government bids?

To the poster “clovisman”:

You wrote: “The warranty will not be worth the paper it is written on. Lockheed will just go and whine to their congressmen, who will pressure DoD to drop the issue and the taxpayer gets stuck again. A warranty only works when all have credibility and accountability.”

This was the most realistic commentary of this week so far… but still naive.

On 11.9.2001 Chimpo told many high-ranking soldiers (especially from the U.S. Airforce) to attack the U.S.A. . That was STUPID (along other things) ! Now he placed not only himself, but also all future U.S. Presidents in the hands of over-confident subordinates, at least for the rest of our generation. Under these circumstances, what kind of politician will step amidst the U.S. brass to investigate, prosecute and punish them for “mismanaging” their money, ideally even withdrawing the treasure chests from under their behinds?
Today, even if a completely different, non-militaristic, independent, European-educated, Socialist ( = ideal!) U.S. President, a true Gandhi, wished to cast some light on those haunting depths of U.S. arms acquisitions, they would sing and bring down the h(H)ouse… or Kennedy him without much fuss.

The U.S.A.’s only military enemy today is… domestic.

Warranty? The Government has forbid “Warranties” for years as they cost too much with little value added. Everything now has switched to a “Performance Based” agreement. The item has to perform to a specified % or the contractor forgoes incentives and possible lose of contract. Even “Workmanship” warranties expire (for the most part) while the item is on the shelf awaiting delivery. Anyone can claim they will offer a “Warranty”, but few, especially the U.S. Government, will allow money to be spent to purchase a warranty.

Sir,

No one in their right mind would by an “extended warranty” for a motor vehicle. And when you assume a good spec and testing program, the odds are not good for either party.

To the poster “Guest” :

You wrote: “Warranty? The Government has forbid ‘warranties’ for years as they cost too much with little value added. (…) … few, especially the U.S. Government, will allow money to be spent to purchase a warranty.”

If the D.o.D. demanded a warranty from DHB for its Interceptor vests, wouldn’t that be much cheaper than paying compensations to the dead and mutilated? (I’m not exactly talking about pennies)

You bring up a good point but your talking mor of a guarantee than a waranty wich only covers the fixing of defects at the contractors expense. I doubt you will find any contractor out there willing to give a guarantee that there product will work every time for any period after purchase. That vest abortion was all political job shopping just as many programs are. Such as when they proved the 9mm was every bit equal to a 45 in stopping power. (yeah right — then why are we moving back to the 45 again undercover) but a retired general got a cushy job with a weapons manufacturer afterwards, ATK — GD and others have a lot of retired generals and admirals working for them as fast as they can get them for this reason.

Who said anything about “after a few hours of normal use”? If you are ready to make a legitimate comment please let us know. Reading newspapers does not make you a defense expert.

My monthly local leaflet tells me that the B-2 needs to be painted with radar-absorbing material AFTER EACH FLIGHT just to survive the next. Rumour has it that the Defense “experts” at the D.o.D. didn’t even know that this was necessary, before buying this most expensive of all U.S. bombers… A warranty would have been well worth the money. Need more examples? Try me (I’m just busy now).

Are these myths about the B-2’s stealth coating still going around? How many years has it been now? Do you think it washes off in the rain too?

Here is a radical thought — don’t go off of rumors, get some facts. So far you obviously are unfamiliar with the facts. Get some education and then come back.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement