7 ms·

Original post from U.S. DoD: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1999639/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/..

by Zaheer 7y ago

Original post from U.S. DoD: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1999639/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/... There's several other contracts mentioned in the post. It's a good reminder of how much money goes into the military–industrial complex. The JEDI contract was by far the largest contract awarded in this round. The rest of contracts total roughly 1.5 billion dollars.

zucker42 7y ago
From the link, could anyone explain why there is a $148 million dollar contract for F35 testing expected to be completed in 2032? Why would it take 12 years to perform testing?
- Darkphibre 7y ago
  Maybe it's for anticipated platform changes as the landscape of the battlefield changes?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anarazel 7y ago
  I have no knowledge specific to this case, but it's pretty common for military hardware to have future capability upgrades scheduled for many years out. Which will then also need to be tested. It seems to make sense to have people with pre-existing knowledge do that - thus a longer term contract seems to make sense.
- metaphor 7y ago
  > The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis. Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?
  - zucker42 7y ago
    I'm not sure; that's part of the reason I was asking. I do think, however, that a 12 year timeline seems too long for any project. Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. But maybe this contract is more of an extended support contract?
    - ztjio 7y ago
      My DESK CHAIR has a 12 year in-home warranty. Twelve years is not that long for a business relationship where reliability is a factor.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      There are 50 year old planes flying and getting upgrades today. I don't think it's unreasonable for the F-35 to still need testing in a decade.
    - metaphor 7y ago
      > Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. I certainly agree that the scale and longevity of some defense projects can be difficult to justify, let alone comprehend. However, a project that may not seem pragmatic from the outside doesn't make it unnecessary. FYSA, from this FY18 report[1] under Programmatics - Static Structural and Durability Testing: ACTIVITY: The program suspended testing of the F-35B ground test article (BH-1) after completing the second lifetime of testing in February 2017. Due to the significant amount of modifications and repairs to bulkheads and other structures, the program declared the F-35B ground test article no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft, deemed it inadequate for further testing, and canceled the testing of the third lifetime with BH-1. The program secured funding to procure another ground test article, which will be production-representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft built with a re-designed wing-carry-through structure, but to date does not have the procurement of the test article on contract. The program has not completed durability testing of the aircraft with the new wing-carry-through structure to date. ASSESSMENT: Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management. Back of the envelope sanity check: assuming this was all technical labor at a conservative enterprise rate of $125/hr in FY20 dollars, that's roughly $12.5MM/yr or 50 unabused man-yrs per annum at face value--nevermind the time-value of money, infrastructure, materials, tooling, turnover, all the unknown unknowns spanning a period of performance in excess of a decade, etc.--for the Navy to purchase a quantifiable level of predictability still 13 years ahead of its time based on an execution plan that doesn't yet exist, using bespoke equipment and new methods that have yet to be developed, on arguably the most complex variant of the platform (at a unit cost which currently exceeds $100MM) whose tech integrations are effectively riding on the bleeding edge state of the art. Given the limiting speed of government contracting and the high stakes on the table, 12 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable. [1] https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35jsf.pdf https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35j...
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  could be regression testing, or testing after each flight to make sure everything is ready to go at a moment’s scramble, like maintenance stuff maybe
- joewee 7y ago
  In government funding you ask that they set the money aside for your specific use. So it’s better to get that set aside for as far out as possible so you don’t have to go back to congress every year and risk political machinations. The 12 year funding is likely a 6 year contract with two optional 3 year renewals or one 6 year optional renewal. There may also be a way to move that money into a new program in 6 years more easily than if you had to go back to congress for a totally new budget.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
The official budget of the Pentagon is $693 billion for 2019. In other word, they are allowed to spend $1.9 billion PER DAY. This is huge.

by Zaheer 7y ago

zucker42 7y ago

From the link, could anyone explain why there is a $148 million dollar contract for F35 testing expected to be completed in 2032? Why would it take 12 years to perform testing?

Darkphibre 7y ago
Maybe it's for anticipated platform changes as the landscape of the battlefield changes?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anarazel 7y ago
I have no knowledge specific to this case, but it's pretty common for military hardware to have future capability upgrades scheduled for many years out. Which will then also need to be tested. It seems to make sense to have people with pre-existing knowledge do that - thus a longer term contract seems to make sense.
metaphor 7y ago
> The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis. Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?
- zucker42 7y ago
  I'm not sure; that's part of the reason I was asking. I do think, however, that a 12 year timeline seems too long for any project. Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. But maybe this contract is more of an extended support contract?
  - ztjio 7y ago
    My DESK CHAIR has a 12 year in-home warranty. Twelve years is not that long for a business relationship where reliability is a factor.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    There are 50 year old planes flying and getting upgrades today. I don't think it's unreasonable for the F-35 to still need testing in a decade.
  - metaphor 7y ago
    > Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future. I certainly agree that the scale and longevity of some defense projects can be difficult to justify, let alone comprehend. However, a project that may not seem pragmatic from the outside doesn't make it unnecessary. FYSA, from this FY18 report[1] under Programmatics - Static Structural and Durability Testing: ACTIVITY: The program suspended testing of the F-35B ground test article (BH-1) after completing the second lifetime of testing in February 2017. Due to the significant amount of modifications and repairs to bulkheads and other structures, the program declared the F-35B ground test article no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft, deemed it inadequate for further testing, and canceled the testing of the third lifetime with BH-1. The program secured funding to procure another ground test article, which will be production-representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft built with a re-designed wing-carry-through structure, but to date does not have the procurement of the test article on contract. The program has not completed durability testing of the aircraft with the new wing-carry-through structure to date. ASSESSMENT: Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management. Back of the envelope sanity check: assuming this was all technical labor at a conservative enterprise rate of $125/hr in FY20 dollars, that's roughly $12.5MM/yr or 50 unabused man-yrs per annum at face value--nevermind the time-value of money, infrastructure, materials, tooling, turnover, all the unknown unknowns spanning a period of performance in excess of a decade, etc.--for the Navy to purchase a quantifiable level of predictability still 13 years ahead of its time based on an execution plan that doesn't yet exist, using bespoke equipment and new methods that have yet to be developed, on arguably the most complex variant of the platform (at a unit cost which currently exceeds $100MM) whose tech integrations are effectively riding on the bleeding edge state of the art. Given the limiting speed of government contracting and the high stakes on the table, 12 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable. [1] https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35jsf.pdf https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35j...
luxuryballs 7y ago
could be regression testing, or testing after each flight to make sure everything is ready to go at a moment’s scramble, like maintenance stuff maybe
joewee 7y ago
In government funding you ask that they set the money aside for your specific use. So it’s better to get that set aside for as far out as possible so you don’t have to go back to congress every year and risk political machinations. The 12 year funding is likely a 6 year contract with two optional 3 year renewals or one 6 year optional renewal. There may also be a way to move that money into a new program in 6 years more easily than if you had to go back to congress for a totally new budget.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

The official budget of the Pentagon is $693 billion for 2019. In other word, they are allowed to spend $1.9 billion PER DAY. This is huge.