Re: SBIRS HEO, TRUMPET FO slippage
From: Sander Vesik (sander_at_haldjas.folklore.ee)
Date: 03/26/05
- Next message: hanson: "Re: The Global Warming Debate Is Over"
- Previous message: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- In reply to: Allen Thomson: "Re: SBIRS HEO, TRUMPET FO slippage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net> wrote:
> Lockheed US satellite program could reach $12 bln
> Tue Mar 22, 2005 01:38 PM ET
>
> WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - A Lockheed Martin Corp.
> satellite system to provide early warning of enemy missile
> attacks could eventually cost around $12 billion, up from
> recent estimates of around $10 billion, Acting Air Force
> Secretary Peter Teets said on Tuesday. Teets, who retires
> on Friday, called the Space-Based Infrared System (SBRIS)
> High program "a huge national priority" and said he saw
> little alternative to restructuring and adding funds to a
> program initially expected to cost $4 billion. But he said
> he was "very unhappy" about its continued cost overruns.
> "I agree it is a snake pit program."
woo! another $2B not spent on blowing up people :)
>
> Teets, who also serves as the top U.S. military space
> official, told lawmakers in a March 11 letter that the cost
> of the third through fifth satellites to be built under the
> SBRIS program was expected to rise more than 15 percent in
> fiscal year 2006 and possibly as much as 25 percent.
If Teets had worked for Enron there would have been no scandal or
Enron breakdown, just a bunch of equity for debt switches, value
and merger markdowns and the like...
>
> Teets told reporters on Tuesday that the Air Force was
> working closely with Lockheed and Northrop Grumman Corp.,
> which builds the main infrared sensors for the satellites, to
> get the program on track and "stop this bleeding."
>
> "I'm not very happy with the performance of Lockheed Martin
> on SBRIS," he said, adding Lockheed was well aware of that.
>
they also know that the air force really doesn't have an alternative
option, esp if they want to continue to buy all american stuff...
> Teets said he was uncertain if the average production unit
> cost increases for the third through fifth satellites would
> hit a 25 percent threshold that would require the Air Force
> to justify continuation of the program on national security
> grounds.
well... if they had upfront said the program needed to go from
$9B to $12B that would already have been a 33% increase... So
I guess they will continue the present tactic of just asking
for an extra one or two billion per year...
>
> If that turned out to be the case, Teets said the Air Force
> would examine other alternatives -- including possibly
> scrapping the program, although he downplayed that
> possibility given the need to replace expiring Defense
> Support Program (DSP) satellites sometime around 2015.
>
> Further delays in the SBRIS program could start to "paint a
> difficult picture" from around 2010, he said, although he
> said he did not foresee a gap in U.S. satellite coverage
> since the DSP satellites were lasting around 10 years, and
> the final one in that group would not be launched until later
> this year.
Yeah, but that would entail believing that the project is in way
better shape by then... And its only 5 years away.
>
> SBRIS High was completely restructured in 2002, when its cost
> growth exceeded 25 percent, but its costs went 15 percent over
> budget again in 2004.
>
> Teets said the program was poorly structured from the outset,
> but the Air Force has now realized that it needs to better
> independently make cost estimates when it competitively bids
> projects like SBRIS.
>
But will it?
> In hindsight, he said the current problems might have been
> avoided if the Air Force had added more money and further
> extended its timetable during the first restructuring in 2002.
>
Yeah right. They should have scraped it then and started over.
> However, he noted there were certain unforeseen problems,
> including electromagnetic interference, that would have been
> difficult to predict in any event.
>
> "We still have a lot of hard work on SBRIS," he said.
>
which all makes launch in 2008 (or was that moved forward?) way
doubtful.
-- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++
- Next message: hanson: "Re: The Global Warming Debate Is Over"
- Previous message: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- In reply to: Allen Thomson: "Re: SBIRS HEO, TRUMPET FO slippage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
