It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force fails to justify Reaper fleet size

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How many times has someone gone to jail for that? Never.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Ur...sometimes it does. There's nothing to say that I can't amortize development into a delivery contract. We've done it many times.

There are times that no-one has a particular thing you want. That happens more in contracts to people who regularly want weird-arsed stuff that has small purchases associated with it. SORDAC comes to mind. It doesn't make sense for a company to develop such things and keep them on a production list.

However, it's a pain in the butt for military/"community" purchasing to finance development of ANYTHING.

It's a lot easier for them to purchase something. It's a huge pain to pay for a development.

In some cases, it's easier for them to purchase one thing than another.

So, what happens is one of those phone calls.

In which it's made clear that they want a device that does (x). But can't pay for development. They would like to purchase (x). And since no one else "has" (x), you can bid whatever you like, and you can set the delivery time to coincide with the date you think you can design, test and produce the thing. And cover the development costs in the per item cost, since you are the only one bidding it. Hint hint.

So, we do a really good estimate, divide it by the number of (x) in the contract, and voila! An (x) that costs about $10,000 each for 100 of them. Then three different aerospace companies "bid" our (x) to the particular branch of the military or community, and there you go. It satisfies the requirements for three competing bids, although all the bids are of our (x), it gets the purchasing guy what he wants, and we get paid for it.

We also get these as "packages" wherein we are informed to put the higher per device pricing on device "a" although that is used to fund development of "b" in the package.

It's done all the time. Grant you, it sort of bypasses the bid process, but technically, three bids occurred. You can also get an LTC or better to stroke you funding from unallocated SBIR funds without bids or papers having been written.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, and sometimes, the budget line for many large purchases includes some R&D money mentioned outright for implementation and field testing (mating a X weapon or sensor after developed to a specific airframe for example).

And I can think of examples of govt/contractor kickbacks and bribes. Lockheed was involved in many bribery scandals overseas. Many people have gone to jail for this sort of thing happening in the states. Outright fraud and corruption happen all the time, I'm sure.

I think what was being implied here by Zaph, and what I took issue with, was that idea that we are overpaying for Reapers to pay for some other unrelated black project. I cannot think of an instance in my experience that we were overpaid for X to develop or deliver Y. Lockheed was never overpaid on Orion contracts to pay for Have Blue, for example. I can't think of an example of a similar tacit arrangement.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

What are you even doing in this forum? YOu're a long ways from home.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I've heard of it happening, usually when buying other equipment from the same company. So in this case, for example, they overpay for Reapers, and the difference goes to adding, say an Avenger to the fleet.

It's not common, but it's not unheard of.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Never heard of it. Even black projects have appropriate paper work. An Avenger isn't going to show up in the fleet without knowing exactly where the money came from.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
ETA" the "Programme cost" on wiki is $12 Billion for about 100 units currently - about $120 million each amortised cost...what was the requested number - 400 for $77 Billion???? something REALLY doesn't add up there!!


"Programme cost" generally includes a given amount of spares (including very expensive engines) and parts over a certain amount of time, contractor support and contractor maintenance. Sometimes planned overhauls at X-many hours are included in a programme. Sometimes includes later upgrades to the fleet and/or upgrades to airframes that were bought in a previous purchase. Plus, new payloads or sensors to be integrated. Plus the R&D for those upgrades. In this case it'll include all the new ground stations which aren't cheap, either.
It all gets lumped into program cost.



Yes of course - which is why the programme cost is much more than the simple fly-away cost time the number of aircraft.

but the "programme" cost of the 400 additional aircraft is $77 billion - which is about double the per-aircraft-cost of the initial programme at $12 billion for 100 a/c.

Zaphod what are "some SAP's", and how do they add up to about $30+ billion additional cost over het per-unit cost of the original programme???



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That's the question. You can't tell me that the price of a Reaper has gone up that much since the initial buy. Something hinky is going on.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Yes of course - which is why the programme cost is much more than the simple fly-away cost time the number of aircraft.

but the "programme" cost of the 400 additional aircraft is $77 billion - which is about double the per-aircraft-cost of the initial programme at $12 billion for 100 a/c.


Look at the "initial spares" procurement line item for each year over the life of the program. Starting in 2016 there is a huge jump. That's where most of the extra money went. That probably means the older Reapers will be needing refurb'ed as they approach their service life limit at that time. All maintenance is done by the contractor and included in the contract and program cost.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes - that's what I'm saying too - we are in serious agreement



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

This short video goes a long way to explaining some of this stuff... And yes I agree with what is being said.

youtu.be...







 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join