Home » Naval » Tomorrow’s big programs should expect The Treatment

Tomorrow’s big programs should expect The Treatment

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 1:23 pm
Posted in Naval, Policy

The Pentagon’s top weapons-buyer, Ash Carter, told this anecdote to an audience at the Heritage Foundation earlier today: So these Navy guys show up and they’ve got this crazy submarine they wanna build — SSBN(X), they called it — and, whew, you better believe that thing was gonna be nice. Only problem was, yikes, was it pricey: It was looking like it was gonna cost about $7 billion per copy. “That means it would displace almost all of the Navy’s shipbuilding accounts,” Carter said. “Or, said differently, that’s not happening.”

So DoD and the Navy began changing the sub’s design while it was still on the drawing board, Carter said — they made changes to its “tube number, tube diameter, flank speed, stealth,” and lowered the projected cost by 27 percent. Look for this sort of thing in a program near you, he said, because of the object of the game in Austerity America will be to only start programs that officials are confident they can see through to completion. No more Commanche, no more CG(X), no more CSAR(X) — and this time they’re serious.

Carter and his top deputy, Frank Kendall, said in separate sessions on Wednesday that the Air Force’s new bomber, the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle, and every other major program will get SSBN(X)-style diligence up front. And in a touch that demonstrates we are in a new era for Pentagon acquisitions, Kendall used the Air Force’s tanker competition as an example of good practices. Seriously: The requirements and capabilities for the planes are stable, he said. The Air Force is buying them under fixed-price contracts. Now that the rough patch is over, all DoD has to do is sit back and enjoy watching its brand new tankers enter service.

“I feel pretty comfortable that we’re in a good place with the tanker,” Kendall said.

Join the Conversation

	Disappointed April 20th, 2011 at 2:05 pm OK, so you trim 27% off the projected price. Now you can stuff the same number of subs into a smaller topline DoD budget. The $7 billion sub is now priced at $5.1 billion. When we get to actual construction, given DoD’s performance over the past 25 years, we can expect that price to climb about 40%. So now we are back to a $7.2 billion sub. Hmmm… that sounds a lot like the strategy that promised a $250 million LCS that is really costing us about $700 million a copy. The “we are serious this time” rhetoric rings hollow in the shadow of the latest SAR reports that show $64 billion in cost growth in one year. That’s right… DoD spent about $180 billion in combined Procurement and R&D last year and among the results of that work are 7 Nunn-McCurdy breaches and $64 billion in cost growth for the department’s investment portfolio. I will believe folks are serious only when I see stars being ripped off uniforms and SESers sent packing for failing to perform. Until then, it is all gamesmanship and rhetoric.
	asdf April 20th, 2011 at 2:07 pm can’t they just build new f-15? it is the cheap(er) option yes, but until the budget issues are fixed…
	freefallingbomb April 20th, 2011 at 2:18 pm If the U.S. American military-industrial complex stops functioning due to structural rot, why should the U.S.A.F. suffer? L-I-C-E-N-S-E P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-O-N ! Everybody wins, NOW .
	halcyon April 20th, 2011 at 2:20 pm Yep, when people start getting fired and demoted, then I’ll believe this. Until then they are just talking.
	STemplar April 20th, 2011 at 2:22 pm They can, it all boils down to how much of the top 5% threat do you wan to be able to address and assume is going to occur. There are a lot of forces at work trying to demonize China and beat the drum of emerging air defense systems and such. To a certain extent they are correct in what is being developed, but I take issue with the conclusion that the scenarios they paint are inevitable or even particularly likely. Aside from that, budget and money is going to be an issue. I think things have changed because the politicians are scoring points in talking about fiscal responsibility. If they think it is what is going to get them elected or re-elected they will do it. I think the F-35 will see that. I think there will be some sort of reduced buy coupled with advanced legacy platform purchase. That option didn’t save as much cash as just canceling the F-35 out right, but it did save some. That would be a win win for most folks. I wish more attention would be paid to the other 95% of what we need the military to do. That part is cheaper, easier to field, faster to field, and works just fine. I think if we focused on that, the DoD could actually spend less, have more capability, and just might wake up one day and realize they actually don’t need or use that top tier stuff much anyway.
	freefallingbomb April 20th, 2011 at 2:34 pm I just answered you by criticizing the U.S. American military-industrial complex in general without resorting to any profanity, and a FEW SECONDS LATER my post already got deleted. If I knew on which other Internet discussion forum I could talk with you without positivistic Pentagon censorship, I would express myself freely about this…
	asdf April 20th, 2011 at 3:09 pm oh yeah, forgot about that. build 300 more f-22. it will still be cheaper imo with the mix of f-15se and f-16b60. also, a lot of (or most) potential threats can only be met with a navy airplanes, at least in the beginning of the conflict, even more now that we will probably see some bases closed… speed up the f/a-xx i say, re-use as much of the tech as possible (sh has a decent avionics, i hear) and upgrade in the future when there is a better moneys situation.
	Byron Skinner April 20th, 2011 at 3:13 pm Good Morning Folks, The punch line:”…and this time they’re serious.” Give me a break. There is no politician or political party that will take on the military industrial complex. That’s a fact. As long as we have a country the military industrial complex will use the scare tactics backed up by out right lies and plan old bribery of elected officials to get these contracts through. I know they they only contribute to campaign funds, its a corporations right under the free speech of the Constitution. What is not said is that when a Congressman or Senators leaves office he/she take what remains in their campaign funds with them, in cash. If there is no bad guys out there, no sweet they will create one re. China. How about Russia, the Russian military collapse no problem, see todays WSJ we will create a Russian powerhouse in the making. The Russia’s say we have a 750K Army the WSJ says no you have 1.048 million, the Russians say we have 1,500 tanks, no the WSJ says you have 3,331. The Russians say we have 74 Submarines, the WSJ says no you have 134 submarines. Serious this time, yea. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	William C. April 20th, 2011 at 3:48 pm I await the specifications of SSBN(X) and hope nothing has been compromised in the pursuit of cost savings. Maybe if the military would have actually seen through programs like the RAH-66, F-22, and XM2001 instead of waiting for the “next best thing” we wouldn’t be in such a bad spot.
	tired April 20th, 2011 at 3:58 pm When the DoD ACQ community is allowed to disregard sunk costs, where’s their motivation to fix any program with issues? They can simply wipe the slate clean and start over, like the program never happened, until they re-package it with a shiny new acronym and role it out to the tax payer again, with a new bill to the tax payer attached. ACQ has to start being held accountable as well as industry. The last cancelled DoDprogram where Gov. ACQ leadership lost their jobs was the A-12. They cannot be allowed to walk simply walk away from a programs without regard, until EVERY effort has been exhausted to reap some capability from the tax dollars already spent!!!
	Oblat April 20th, 2011 at 4:15 pm Failure — there is no alternative.
	Oblat April 20th, 2011 at 4:19 pm If a project bankrupted the nation and forced every American man women and child into Chinese slavery Bill would still be saying there is no alternative. That is how much he despises America.
	Oblat April 20th, 2011 at 4:25 pm Carters statements show gross negligence and criminal conspiracy. He should be removed immediately and investigated for embezzlement, fraud and racketeering — just as would happen to any other procurement manager outside the DoD if he openly admitted to decades of corruption.
	BreakTheCycle April 20th, 2011 at 4:50 pm Micromanaging a contractor’s design from OSD is probably a recipe for disaster. Failing programs don’t need to be salvaged, they need to be terminated, so we can wipe the slate clean and start over again with something sensible, including an acquisition strategy that does not involve micromanaging contractors.
	Roland April 20th, 2011 at 5:35 pm Probably we should rebuild our steel and other metal industry that was closed in the past to make our submarine, ship and boat building cheaper.
	@E_L_P April 20th, 2011 at 5:36 pm Yet there is no available proof that the F-35 will be survivable against first team threats. Especially when you consider the moldline issue won’t start to be put in production jets until 2015. When the F-35 is fielded (if ever) it will be yesterday’s technology. Especially with a JORD from circa 1999–2000
	@E_L_P April 20th, 2011 at 5:41 pm Politicians are labeled wrong in the news. Instead of the politician’s name and a (D) or ® after it it should read-politician’s name and a (L) {Lockheed Martin} or (B) {Boeing} after it. The first sentence of this article also needs a correction. I offer this as a suggestion: “The Pentagon’s top weapons-buyer, Ash Carter,(call sign “Ponzi”) told this anecdote to an audience at the Heritage Foundation earlier today.…”
	Guest April 20th, 2011 at 6:50 pm This is great news, they indirectly just told us that the SSBN(X) will not be cancelled. And for once I hope they don’t tell anyone anything about it, unlike the rubes above. A sub’s power is in it’s secrets, I’d rather keep our adversaries guessing.
	William C. April 20th, 2011 at 8:00 pm Being a slave to the Chinese? You would know about that well Oblatski, tell us how kind your masters are to you. They pay well I presume. If a defense program angers Oblat, it is doing something right.
	William C. April 20th, 2011 at 8:05 pm Conspiracy! He was clearly in on the JFK assassinations, and the faked moon landings, and the mind control satellites! Anything else you want to inform of us Oblatski? If he was outside the DoD he would be canned? You underestimate the ability of the federal government to never fire such officials, they don’t have to be in the DoD. He isn’t guilty of anything other than not being very good at his job. Something awfully common in Washington.
	J "AJ" Donnley April 20th, 2011 at 8:21 pm Chopping Block, shopping list: JSF, F-22, B-2, KC-X, NGB, and Mullins wasteful Stealth BOATS or Dinghy’s. These platforms alone would pay off the National Debit in Savings over the next 30 years. This is not hard. We are subsidizing the Prime Integrator instead of the Warfighters. Just like up-armoring HUMVEES 8 Years ago. Instead we are out purchasing these piles of expensive CRAP instead of funding the Army & Marine Corps and the equipment they need. Senior Leadership at the Pentagon i.e. the Secretary of War needs to be FIRED for being STUPID. Wake UP!!!! Our potential advisories have the S-400 SA-21 capable of destroying stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with an effective range of up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and a speed of up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second.
	J "AJ" Donnley April 20th, 2011 at 8:23 pm I agree Freefallingbomb, these folks only allow what they feel is correct. This website works for the Integrators. No one as usual wants to here the truth.
	Jon April 21st, 2011 at 1:41 am i have a question why not revert back to the f-22 purchase 700 air superiority fighters and 700 F/B-22 fighter bombers pretty dang good design and i believe it will eventually be cheaper than the ballooning f-35 i also think this would generate cost cynergies because the airforce would have 1 major fighter 1 or 2 sets of major engines i beleive it could save them alot of money while i like this idea i do beleive this would only be a short time fix until a cheaper fighter could be developed which would not replace these but would be a multi role fighter replacing all older F-16 and such just a thought
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:27 am Well one, the F-22 would not be cheaper than the F-35, especially when you add all the capability the F-35 has that the F-22 doesn’t. The F-22 looked cheap at the end because you already bought things like schools, test equipment, spares, and simulators (yes, all of that goes into unit cost), and becasue lets face it, they didn’t have squat on them. The USAF has something like $50 million a plane over the FYDP to upgrade the F-22s to get them close to what the F-35 will deliver with from the start. Things like AIM-9X. – F-35 will be able to communicate with everyone. – F-35 has an integrated IR sensor, zip on an F-22. – F-35 can carry a large range of ordnance right from the start, F-22 not so much – The F-35 is vastly cheaper to maintain, being designed from the start to be cheaper (at some expense of stealth admittedly). The F-22 costs a fortune both to maintain (people) and fly (fuel, spares, etc). – Initial production F-22s cost well over §300million a piece, far more than any LRIP F-35 aircraft. Bottom line is a F-22 will not be cheaper.
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:35 am Your $64 billion is somewhat out of perspective. A large precentage came from the F-35 that was expected to cost upwards of $30billion more over the life of the $300billion+ and 30year plus program for several thousand planes. Still major issues, but compare apples to apples please.
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:38 am Total cost of the steel and fabrication for a ship is something like 11% of the cost. Not going to make much difference, even if we don’t already buy all the steel in Navy ships from within the US.
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:42 am You could completely close DoD and you wouldn’t even eliminate the defecit let alone the debt! And really, a 2200 mile S-400? Really? 2,200 miles? Good thing only Russia has them huh?
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:52 am Heres a better idea for SSBN(X). – Use of the same reactor on the Virginia class, except whatever speed that gives you. – Use the same sensors as on the Virginia class, except whatever capability that gives you. – Accept the same stealth as a Virginia class. – Use an updated Trident D-5 instead of something new. – Buy 10 instead of 12. That gives you 5 on each coast, do we really need more? Viola! I just saved something like $10 billion We need a George Washington class (i.e. good enough) as opposed to an Ohio.
	Curt April 21st, 2011 at 3:52 am That should be accept and not except, lousy proof reading on my part.
	STemplar April 21st, 2011 at 4:15 am Given the excuses for the F22 not being in Libya I’m not sure why we would bother building more. They are always going to be too far away from everywhere except VA, NM, and AK. I guess if the Canadians or Mexicans get smarmy we are all set. I don’t have an issue with advanced aircraft design, I just think the F22 and F35 aren’t it. They aren’t what we need. They were conceived for the USSR/Warsaw Pact and Europe. That’s gone. What we need to do is start with where we are going to operate from, and what theaters we are likely to operate in with top tier equipment. That’s easy, the western Pacific. Then take a look at logistics and operational needs of the system. What kind of range does it need? What is basing like? etc Then design it from that perspective. I also don’t think we need it right now, I think we have the luxury of 10 to 15 years. I think new build legacy aircraft with advanced features like AESA and IRST on existing platforms will do just fine until a truly useful airplane could emerge. It’s not going to be a wonder jet, no VTOL/STOVL non sense. It should be twin engine, long legs (1000nmi-ish combat radius), stealthy, and carrier capable. If it can fly from a carrier, it can fly from an Air Force base. Good payload in stealth profile, like 4 –2000lb JDAMs, and super cruise, no thrust vectoring dog fighter non sense. We haven’t been in a real dog fight since Vietnam, we need a strike aircraft, not a dog fighter. If you want a dog fighter then make one for that, don’t try to have both.
	Tanker April 21st, 2011 at 5:28 am Maybe Mr. Carter should enlist the help of the Extreme Makeover folks, and get a new weapon system in a week. That would cut down dramatically on the sniping from everyone outside the Pentagon. Of course, the downside is that the system wouldn’t meet needs (ever notice how those houses have 0 interior walls on the main floor). Just a thought.
	roland April 21st, 2011 at 6:47 am I disagree on your computation. You still have to add the custom cost from imports, seller cost and the middle man cost if we order the material from foreign country.
	@jhasik April 21st, 2011 at 10:49 am No, “Curt” is correct on this one. The total cost of steel—most of which, by law, must come from American sources—has not substantially affected ship prices for most of the past few decades. See RAND’s research on this at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9182/i…
	@jhasik April 21st, 2011 at 10:51 am Disregarding sunk costs is an essential lesson of introductory microeconomics.
	bigRick April 27th, 2011 at 7:41 pm I don’t think the George Washington class “tech” would be quiet enough now days. It’s not good if the bad guys can hear our boomers
	tkumarr April 29th, 2011 at 4:33 pm Well said buddy !!

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

DoD Buzz

Tomorrow’s big programs should expect The Treatment

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments