Anyway, I hate to sound like a commie pinko but I see the main advantage of an extended airframe life for the most expensive weapons system in history is that you can use it as a carrot for military brass involved in the program as they will know there will be plenty of consulting jobs available long after they retire from a military career.
Anotar,
You are new here so I will give you a pass.
However, as a professional Acquisition Logistician in the United States Army highly insulting and disrespectful. The Acquisition Corps of the US Department of Defense are professionals. We are held to a higher standard of ethics compared to other members of the US Civil Service. Just about everyone who has tried that crap has been 1) tried in the federal courts (see the KC Tanker Deal & Boeing) and ostrasized and banished from the community.
From about 1998 through 2010 we purged our corps of these bad actors. Changes in Federal Acquisition law forced this reform.
That said, the decision like the service life of an aircraft, tank or ship are not decided by the Acquisition community. Those decision come from the Capabilities Developer...i.e., the people who write doctrine and represent the Soldier, Air man or Sailor. Acquisition personnel get the funding and manage the development of a product and then are responsible for budgeting for the sustainment of the weapon system over its entire life cycle (repair parts, support equipment, training products, etc.)
As to the specific issue of the $500 M for testing...remember YFs comment about requirements creep? This is where that impacts. Lockheed planned and budgeted for X amount. When the new capabilities were added in the cost of the testing went up. That is what you are seeing here.
And I want that system to be tested to the nth degree. That makes sure it works and works properly when it gets to the fleet/squadrons.
This is actually a good thing.
Anotar,
You are new here so I will give you a pass.
However, as a professional Acquisition Logistician in the United States Army highly insulting and disrespectful. The Acquisition Corps of the US Department of Defense are professionals. We are held to a higher standard of ethics compared to other members of the US Civil Service. Just about everyone who has tried that crap has been 1) tried in the federal courts (see the KC Tanker Deal & Boeing) and ostrasized and banished from the community.
From about 1998 through 2010 we purged our corps of these bad actors. Changes in Federal Acquisition law forced this reform.
That said, the decision like the service life of an aircraft, tank or ship are not decided by the Acquisition community. Those decision come from the Capabilities Developer...i.e., the people who write doctrine and represent the Soldier, Air man or Sailor. Acquisition personnel get the funding and manage the development of a product and then are responsible for budgeting for the sustainment of the weapon system over its entire life cycle (repair parts, support equipment, training products, etc.)
As to the specific issue of the $500 M for testing...remember YFs comment about requirements creep? This is where that impacts. Lockheed planned and budgeted for X amount. When the new capabilities were added in the cost of the testing went up. That is what you are seeing here.
And I want that system to be tested to the nth degree. That makes sure it works and works properly when it gets to the fleet/squadrons.
This is actually a good thing.
Comment