USAF Confident About CSAR-X Progress
This article first appeared in Aviation Week.com.
The U.S. Air Force is still confident a design will be selected as planned this fall for the armed service's controversial rescue helicopter replacement program, even though forthcoming draft findings of a Defense Department inspector general (IG) investigation could slow the process of announcing a winner.
Maj. Gen. Scott Gray, USAF director of acquisition for global reach programs, said he doesn't expect the IG's findings to impact the schedule of the contract award announcement. "We've heard nothing from the DOD IG that causes us concern," he told Pentagon reporters.
Service officials are folding lessons from Government Accountability Office's findings in the beleaguered aerial refueling tanker contest into future acquisition programs. In the case of CSAR-X, "we feel pretty confident that there was nothing...that needed to be fixed," Gray said.
The new aircraft are needed to replace aging HH-60G Pave Hawks now in service. Gray says that as of 2006, 7 percent of the Pave Hawk fleet of 101 helicopters was past its service life of 7,000 hr. He projects that in 2015, 58 percent will exceed their service life.
Read more of this story, see if there will be more work on DDG-1000, take a treaty watch and a bit of '80s retro from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.
-- Christian
Post a comment
Mountainer, these days fighters cost so much that the services can't afford to field new ones every decade as in the old days. You can't plan/design a replacement too early or the technology is obsolete by time of fielding. Industry will not build a new plane unless they know the requirements which can change over time...e.g. stealth,...and have an assured customer's funding source. In the case of airlifters, the C-141 was replaced by an aircraft with twice the payload that could land on a shorter field. Thus requirements drove it to cost far more than the aircraft it replaced and the prospects for its replacement are thus decades away.
In the case of tankers, it makes sense to base them on commercial airliners. So by waiting you can field a new commercial model instead of an old one...unless its a KC-767.;) Also the KC-135R has an average fleet life of around 17,000 hours and a projected life of 39,000 hours which is still far less than many Boeing 707 airline birds had on them. Those birds aren't likely to lose wings anytime soon. The F-15 fix cost half a million vs $160 million for a new F-22.
The CSAR contract has new versus improved competitors. So do you pick the well-proven model with newest technology inserted for less overall risk, or the all new model that may have teething problems. That is one dilemma facing the USAF. But the main one appears to be the politicizing of the process, and protests that occur after nearly every contract award. With fewer contracts spread further apart the stakes are far higher for industry teams that may not see another contract for a fighter or airlifter design for decades. These are new phenomena in the acquisition cycle that are slowing the process.
Posted by: Cole at August 24, 2008 03:41 PM