DOCSLIB.ORG

Defense Cost and Resource Center the Defense Cost and Resource Center: an Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defense Cost and Resource Center the Defense Cost and Resource Center: an Update Defense Cost and Resource Center The Defense Cost and Resource Center: An Update Ronald Lile 40th DoDCAS February 2007 We need good data reporting!! Acquisition Executives need to make decisions based on “actual” experience 2 DCARC Mission & Objectives • Mission – To collect historical Major Defense Acquisition Program cost and software resource data and make those data available for use by authorized government analysts to estimate the cost of ongoing and future government programs, particularly DoD weapon systems. • Objectives – Make CSDR reporting as inexpensive and least disruptive as possible for contractors. – Provide wide availability of CSDR data to legitimate government users. – Maintain integrity and accuracy of data collected. – Improve quality of data reported by industry. Primary Objective: Ensure that DoD cost estimates provided to senior management reflect as accurately as possible DoD’s experience 3 “Actual” Contractor Cost Data • Provides basis of cost estimates of future systems – Long and painful DoD experience has shown that “actual” cost of producing systems are, by far, the best basis for cost estimates • To be useful for this purpose, definitionally consistent historical data are needed • CCDRs are DoD’s only systematic mechanism for capturing actual data 4 Software Resource Data • Software is a cost driver on many systems and the DoD has little historical data upon which to base future estimates – There are no data to compare estimated software cost and size with actual program results; no records of software metrics – Tried and failed to match CARDs with CCDR data – Software data routinely reported as “red” at annual DoD Cost Analysis Symposium 5 DCARC Goal • Collect and make available data that are: – Comparable (i.e., across programs) – Meaningful (i.e., level of detail that provides insight) – Transparent (i.e., well defined) – Accurate – Auditable 6 So…where are we? 7 DoD 5000 Compliance 8 ACAT IC/ID CSDR Status Post-Dropping of Advisory Ratings Active Programs w/CAIG Active Programs w/CAIG Active Programs w/CAIG Approved CSDR Plans & Approved CSDR Plans & Approved CSDR Plans & Pre-MDAP Programs Not Rated No Issues Minor Issues1 Major Issues3 AARGM AMRAAM ADS 21" MRUUVS AWACS Upgrade AEHF** B-2 RMP C-130 AMP** ACS C-5 AMP AIM-9X CEC CH-47F AIAMD ERM ARH CH-53K COBRA JUDY APS FAB-T ATIRCM/CMWS DDG 1000 (DD(X)) CVN-21 AR/LSB JSTARS BRADLEY UPGD** E-2C REPROD EELV BMTC MEADS** C-130J F/A-18 E/F** F-22 CG(X) RMS C-17A F-35 GLOBAL HAWK** DCGS-A SIAP C-5 RERP FBCB2 GMLRS DCGS-AF VTUAV Fire Scout E/A-18G** FCS H-1 Upgrades** JNN No Action E-2D ADV Hawkeye JLENS JTRS GMR (CL 1) LBSD Programs Waived EFV LPD-17** JTRS HMS (CL 5) NGLRS EXCALIBUR MPS JTRS Joint Waveform ODSI CHEM DEMIL FMTV NAVSTAR GPS** LAND WARRIOR SR HPCM GBS NPOESS LB APACHE BLK III* STS CONNECTOR JPATS HIMARS SSGN** LCS** MIDS LVT JASSM V-22 LHA Replacement AOC-WS NAS JDAM (EMD) WIN-T MH-60R E-10 SSDS JSOW MIDS JTRS ECSS MH-60S MM III PRP JTRS AMF Programs Grandfathered MM III GRP MP RTIP MUOS NAVSTAR GPS UE B-2 EHF CVN77 P-8 (MMA) SM 2 (IV) BAMS DDG51 PATRIOT PAC-3 SSN 774 CSAR-X BMDS SBIRS HIGH T-AKE JCA SDB I JHSV SM-6 (ERAM) JPALS Proper CSDR Planning STRYKER JUCAS TAC TOMAHAWK Early Problems KC-X UH-60M Upgrade LUH VH-71 (VXX) MPF(F) WGS As of January 10, 2007 NAVSTAR GPS III 1- Or Agreed Upon Path Forward NMT 2- Includes Data Issues or Plan Implementation Issues SDB II 3- Includes No Progress on Data Issues or Plan TSAT Implementation Issues *-Initial Assessment **-Withhold program on a get well plan 32 18 25 33 18 TOTAL PROGRAMS 126 9 Analytical Activities • CSDR Plans – Approved Plans CY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005 CY2006 Total Plans IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total Program4263131615173232457925336379110196 Contract 11 1 12 12 18 30 34 27 61 71 97 175 58 118 189 186 261 467 Subcontract00003355762361431852710012968303379 Total 15 3 18 15 34 49 54 101 155 139 285 439 110 251 381 333 674 1,042 – Plans in progress Plans in Progress Plans IC ID Total Program 1 4 5 Contract 10 18 29 Subcontract 5 13 20 Total 16 35 54 As of December 31, 2006 10 CY 2006 CSDR Plan Statistics Distribution of Plans Approved in CY06 250 Program Plans Approved 203 200 Contract Plans Approved Subcontract Plans Approved 150 129 100 79 64 65 62 58 50 37 28 24 23 17 1 4 0 Army Navy Air Force DoD Total 11 CY 2006 CSDR Plan Statistics- Cont’d CY2006 CSDR Plans Approved More than 50% of CY2006 Plans were 250 revisions 200 93 150 Revised New 100 67 110 50 44 62 21 0 Program Plans Contract Plans Subcontract Plans 12 Analysis of CY2006 CSDR Plans NEW 1st Revision(R) 2nd Revision(R1) 3rd Revision(R2) 4th Revision(R3) Count 192 135(70%) 62(32%) 12(6%) 4(2%) Air Force 69 36 15 5 Army 49 57 33 7 4 Navy 71 33 14 DoD 39 Aircraft 62 41 24 1 Air Force 18 11 Army 26 7 An Example CSDR Plan Revisions Navy 17 14 DoD 1 9 Missile 11 18 2 4 3 Army 18 Ordnance 45 1 Revisions Air Force 2 2 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Navy 2 3 M issile 18 Electronics 43 14 5 1 1 Army 18 Air Force 7 3 Javelin Jt Venture, Orlando JAVELIN Army 10 9 Raytheon, Tucson JAVELIN Navy 24 2 LMM&FC, Orlando JAVELIN DoD 2 LMM&FC, Dallas PAC-3, HIMARS GMLRS, HIMARS Space 36 20 5 3 Aerojet GMLRS Air Force 36 18 General Dynamics GMLRS Navy 2 CAUSALITY: Surface Vehicle 6143 - AMCOM Army 12 - EDUCATION & TRAINING Navy 6 2 - DEVIATIONS IN CWBS FROM MIL-HDBK-8881A MISSILE SYSTEM WBS Ship 15 10 2 - MULTIPLE PHASES PER CONTRACT Navy 15 10 - MULTIPLE VARIANTS PER CONTRACT UAV 11 2 1 - IMPROPER RFP PACKAGES Air Force 4 2 - LACK OF PRIME-SUBCONTRACTOR-GOV'T PLANNING & POST-AWARD Navy 7 EXECUTION - WRONG WBSs in RFPs Sys of Sys 411202 - LACK OF PRIME OVERSIGHT ON SUBCONTRACTOR REPORTING- Army 11 13 Why so many Plan Revisions? • Systemic Problems- What we are doing wrong – Incorrect, Incomplete & Non-Compliant WBS in RFP (e.g. NLOS-LS) – Lack of CAIG-Approved CSDR Plan in RFP (JTRS SRW 1 day notice before contract award) – Program Manager’s & Contracting Officers uninformed/don’t care about CSDR Requirements (e.g. MDA- SM-3) – Prime-Subcontractor Flow-Down Requirement Deficiencies (e.g. Lockheed Martin failed to flow down requirement to Boeing on RF Missile Seeker- PAC-3) – Lack of Discipline & Management Oversight by Gov’t CWIPT leads (F-22 10 Years of neglect lead to Resubmissions by Prime & Subs) – Acquisition Reform Policies (e.g. AMRAAM, JASSM retroactive reporting) • Program Unique- Normal Reasons for Revisions – Restructures – Contract Type Changes – Make/Buy Changes – Updated based on Contractor Responses 14 Analytical Activities • Validate CSDR Submissions – CCDR Metrics: CY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005 CY2006 Total CCDR Reports Received 164 247 387 1214 1306 3318 CCDR Reports Validated 119 145 332 1239 1407 3242 CCDR Reports Accepted 25 16 101 585 860 1587 CCDR Reports Rejected 94 129 231 654 526 1634 Validation Rate/Yr 73% 59% 86% 100% 100% 98% Acception Rate/Yr 21% 11% 30% 47% 61% 49% – SRDR Metrics: CY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005 CY2006 Total SRDR Reports Received 0 0 9 66 99 174 SRDR Reports Validated 0000111111 SRDR Reports Accepted 00002020 SRDR Reports Rejected 00009191 Validation Rate/Yr N/A N/A N/A 0% 100% 64% Acception Rate/Yr N/A N/A N/A 0% 18% 18% As of December 31, 2006 15 CSDR Training Statistics CSDR Training Metrics 600 > 1200 Students Trained 500 400 334 Industry 300 235 Gov't 143 # of Students of # 200 100 197 120 124 27 42 0 CY 2004 CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 16 DACIMS Holdings 17 Reports by Commodity Mil Handbook Number of Reports Aircraft 13635 Electronic/Automated Software 3507 Missile 9607 Ordnance 517 Ship 222 Space 1140 Surface Vehicle 708 System of System 9 UAV 95 Total 29914 18 Top Aircraft Programs Program Number of Reports F-14 772 F/A-18 726 A-4 688 EA-6 666 A-6 590 E-2 (Hawkeye) 583 P-3 538 A-7 517 UH-60 489 AH-64 455 19 Current Aircraft Programs Program Number of Reports F/A-18 726 AH-64 455 CH-47 301 F-22 279 C-17 151 V-22 140 F-35 100 EA-18 50 MH-60 50 H-1 Upgrades 45 E-2 (Advanced Hawkeye) 26 VH-71 (Presidential Helicopter) 20 P-8 (MMA) 8 CH-53K (HLR) 5 RAH-70 (ARH) 3 20 Top Missile Programs Program Number of Reports AIM-9 (Sidewinder) 1057 AIM-7; RIM-7 (Sparrow; Sea Sparrow) 973 AIM-54 (Phoenix) 707 LGM-118 (Peacekeeper) 597 AGM-84; RGM-84; UGM-84 (Harpoon) 548 AGM-114 (Hellfire) 540 FIM-92 (Stinger Basic) 441 MIM-72 (Chaparral) 434 UGM-96 (Trident I (C-4)) 376 MIM-104 (Patriot) 335 21 Current Missile Programs Program Number of Reports AIM-9 (Sidewinder) 1057 AIM-120 (AMRAAM) 292 LGM-30 (Minuteman III) 71 GMLRS (Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) 64 AGM-154 (Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)) 55 MIM-104D (Patriot PAC-3) 26 MGM-164 (ATACMS BLOCK II) 24 NLOS-LS (Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System) 14 Extended Range Active Missile (Standard Missile-6) 10 RIM-66 (Standard Missile-2 (SM-2 MR )) 10 AGM-158 (Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)) 8 RIM-156 (Standard Missile 2 (SM-2 ER)) 7 Joint Common Missile 6 R/UGM-109 (Tactical Tomahawk) 5 RIM-67 (Standard Missile 2 (SM-2)) 2 HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) 1 22 Top E/ASS Programs Program Number of Reports F-14 (Tomcat) 457 AH-64 (Apache) 279 B-1 (Lancer) 209 E-8 (Joint STARS) 185 Future Combat Systems (FCS) 153 F-16 (Fighting Falcon) 145 FBCB2 (FORCE XXI Battle Command Brigade & Below) 129 PLRS/JTIDS (Position Locating Reporting System/Joint Tactical Information Distribution 127 MIDS-LVT (Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal) 115 F/A-18 (Hornet) 106 23 Current E/ASS Programs Program Number of Reports AH-64 (Apache) 279 E-8 (Joint STARS) 185 Future Combat Systems (FCS) 153
Load more

Recommended publications
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2014. By Aaron M. U. Church, Associate Editor I 2015 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT flight controls actuate trailing edge surfaces that combine aileron, elevator, and rudder functions. New EHF satcom and high-speed computer upgrade B-1 Lancer recently entered full production. Both are part of the Defensive Management Brief: A long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and System-Modernization (DMS-M). Efforts are underway to develop a new VLF delivering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. receiver for alternative comms. Weapons integration includes the improved COMMENTARY GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and JASSM-ER and future weapons The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four pro- such as GBU-53 SDB II, GBU-56 Laser JDAM, JDAM-5000, and LRSO. Flex- totypes were developed and tested in 1970s before program cancellation in ible Strike Package mods will feed GPS data to the weapons bays to allow 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft weapons to be guided before release, to thwart jamming. It also will move added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross stores management to a new integrated processor. Phase 2 will allow nuclear section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in and conventional weapons to be carried simultaneously to increase flexibility. Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Paths of Heaven the Emergence of Space Power Thought
    Beyond the Paths of Heaven The Emergence of Space Power Thought A Comprehensive Anthology of Space-Related Master’s Research Produced by the School of Advanced Airpower Studies Edited by Bruce M. DeBlois, Colonel, USAF Professor of Air and Space Technology Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama September 1999 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond the paths of heaven : the emergence of space power thought : a comprehensive anthology of space-related master’s research / edited by Bruce M. DeBlois. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Astronautics, Military. 2. Astronautics, Military—United States. 3. Space Warfare. 4. Air University (U.S.). Air Command and Staff College. School of Advanced Airpower Studies- -Dissertations. I. Deblois, Bruce M., 1957- UG1520.B48 1999 99-35729 358’ .8—dc21 CIP ISBN 1-58566-067-1 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii OVERVIEW . ix PART I Space Organization, Doctrine, and Architecture 1 An Aerospace Strategy for an Aerospace Nation . 3 Stephen E. Wright 2 After the Gulf War: Balancing Space Power’s Development . 63 Frank Gallegos 3 Blueprints for the Future: Comparing National Security Space Architectures . 103 Christian C. Daehnick PART II Sanctuary/Survivability Perspectives 4 Safe Heavens: Military Strategy and Space Sanctuary . 185 David W. Ziegler PART III Space Control Perspectives 5 Counterspace Operations for Information Dominance .
    [Show full text]
  • IMTEC-89-53 Military Space Operations: Use of Mobile Ground
    . -. ,(. ,. .“” ,Y .,, . -- II, ./, .I i /, . % . ,L. United States Gdneral Accounting Off& Report to the Honorable &.A0 John P. Murtha, Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives July 1989 MILITARY SPACE ’ OPERATIONS Use of Mobile Ground Stations in Satellite Control GAO/IMTEC439-63 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Information Management and Technology Division B-224148 July 3, 1989 The Honorable John P. Murtha Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: In your January 9, 1989, letter and in subsequent discussions with your office, you asked us to determine (1) how mobile ground stations fit into the Air Force’s overall satellite control architecture, (2) how many sta- tions exist and are planned, (3) what they cost by program element and appropriation account, and (4) how much the Department of Defense budgeted in fiscal year 1990 for mobile ground stations. As agreed with your office, our review focused primarily on mobile ground stations used by the Air Force’s satellite programs and included mobile ground stations used for one Defense Communications Agency satellite program. The Air Force’s satellite control architecture establishes a requirement for mobile ground stations to provide command and control instructions to maintain the position of a satellite in orbit as well as to provide the capability to process information coming from satellites. This network of stations, when completed, is planned to supplement fixed stations and/or to totally command and control a satellite’s position in orbit or process information. As of May 1989, there were 39 existing mobile ground stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Usafalmanac ■ Gallery of USAF Weapons
    USAFAlmanac ■ Gallery of USAF Weapons By Susan H.H. Young The B-1B’s conventional capability is being significantly enhanced by the ongoing Conventional Mission Upgrade Program (CMUP). This gives the B-1B greater lethality and survivability through the integration of precision and standoff weapons and a robust ECM suite. CMUP will include GPS receivers, a MIL-STD-1760 weapon interface, secure radios, and improved computers to support precision weapons, initially the JDAM, followed by the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The Defensive System Upgrade Program will improve aircrew situational awareness and jamming capability. B-2 Spirit Brief: Stealthy, long-range, multirole bomber that can deliver conventional and nuclear munitions anywhere on the globe by flying through previously impenetrable defenses. Function: Long-range heavy bomber. Operator: ACC. First Flight: July 17, 1989. Delivered: Dec. 17, 1993–present. B-1B Lancer (Ted Carlson) IOC: April 1997, Whiteman AFB, Mo. Production: 21 planned. Inventory: 21. Unit Location: Whiteman AFB, Mo. Contractor: Northrop Grumman, with Boeing, LTV, and General Electric as principal subcontractors. Bombers Power Plant: four General Electric F118-GE-100 turbo fans, each 17,300 lb thrust. B-1 Lancer Accommodation: two, mission commander and pilot, Brief: A long-range multirole bomber capable of flying on zero/zero ejection seats. missions over intercontinental range without refueling, Dimensions: span 172 ft, length 69 ft, height 17 ft. then penetrating enemy defenses with a heavy load Weight: empty 150,000–160,000 lb, gross 350,000 lb. of ordnance. Ceiling: 50,000 ft. Function: Long-range conventional bomber.
    [Show full text]
  • NSIAD-86-45S-15 DOD Acquisition: Case Study of the MILSTAR
    United States General Accounting Office 1305sq GAO Report to Congressional Requesters July 31,1986 DOD ACQUISITION Case Study of the MILSTAR Satellite Communications System IIllIlllIillll IIIII 130589 GAOl/MAD-f3S-4SS-l6 036aa3 /3Os8P I / Preface The Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management asked GAO to examine the capabilities of the program manager and contracting officer in weapon systems acquisition. As part of this study, GAO examined 17 new major weapon system programs in their initial stages of develop ment. These casestudies document the history of the programs and are being made available for informational purposes. This study of the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay (MUTAR) pro- gram focuses on the role of the program manager and contracting officer in developing the acquisition strategy. Conclusions and recommenda- tions can be found in our overall report, DOD Acquisition: Strengthening Capabilities of Key Personnel in Systems Acauisition (GAO/NSL4D-86-46, May 12,1986). Frank C. Conahan, Director . National Security and International Affairs Division Page 1 GAO/NSIADM4S-15 Defense Acquisition Work Force The MILSTm Program The Military Strategic and Tactical Relay (MUTAR) Satellite Communica- Origin of the Program tions System is being developedjointly by the Air Force, Navy, and Army. The system is designedto meet the minimum essential wartime communication needsof the President and Commanders-in-Chief to com- mand and control our strategic and tactical forces through all levels of conflict. MIISTAR will be composedof satellites in geostationary orbit (about 22,894 nautical miles above the center of the earth) and other comple- mentary orbits that will be crosslinked for worldwide coverage.The system will use the extremely high frequency band to prevent jamming.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerns with Milstar's Support to Strategic and Tactical Forces
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee GAO on National Security, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives November 1998 MILITARY SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS Concerns With Milstar’s Support to Strategic and Tactical Forces GAO/NSIAD-99-2 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-278426 November 10, 1998 The Honorable C. W. Bill Young Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) multiservice Milstar system is intended to provide the National Command Authorities, chief military commanders, and strategic and tactical military forces with a highly protected and survivable means of communications that would be operable nearly worldwide and throughout all levels of military conflict.1 The Milstar program involves the acquisition of satellites; a mission control capability; and specially designed Army, Navy, and Air Force terminals for a variety of users operating from ground-mobile vehicles, ships, submarines, aircraft, and fixed-ground locations. As you requested, we evaluated (1) the Milstar system’s capabilities to support strategic and tactical missions and (2) the extent to which DOD has provided assurance of continuing comparable satellite communications among the users after the Milstar satellites under development are launched. Background DOD initiated the Milstar program under Air Force management in the early 1980s. Milstar is intended to be DOD’s most robust communications satellite system. It is designed to operate in the extremely high frequency (EHF) radio spectrum, although it has super high frequency and ultra high frequency capabilities, and it was originally designed to transmit signals at low data rates (LDR).2 Milstar employs computer processing capabilities on the satellites and several different radio signal processing techniques that provide resistance to electronic jamming.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on GPS Modernization Efforts 2 June 2015
    Space and Missile Systems Center Update on GPS Modernization Efforts 2 June 2015 Brig Gen William T. “Bill” Cooley Director, GPS Directorate PUBLICALLY RELEASABLE UNCLASSIFIED GSSAP SSA DSP DSCS COMMERCIAL COMM SBIRS WGS GEO MILSTAR Geostationary Earth Orbit GPS-III Optimal for (FUTURE) AEHF GPS-IIF Continuous Comm GPS-IIRM GPS-IIR GPS-IIA MEO Medium Earth Orbit Optimal for Global positioning, navigation & timing POLAR Optimal for DMSP Sun Sync/Global Weather ORS-1 Weather LEO Low Earth Orbit Optimal for Earth Sensing MILLSTONE HAYSTACK SBSS-10 • CCS SSA • SPACETRACK JMS VAFB AMOS GEODSS (NM) • GEODSS (DG) Eglin Radar • GEODSS (HI) • SPACE FENCE AFSCN GROUND STATIONS – Global Satellite Control C-Band Indian Ocean Micronesia Pacific Ocean Vandenberg AFB New Boston, NH Thule Air Base RAF Oakhanger CCAFS SST (AUS) DGS “REEF” GTS “GUAM” HTS “HULU” VTS “COOK” NHS “BOSS” TTS “POGO” TCS “LION” AEHF = Advanced Extremely High Frequency System, AFSCN = Air Force Satellite Control Network, CCAFS = Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, DMSP = Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DSCS = Defense Satellite Communications, DSP = Defense Support Program System, EPS = Enhanced Polar System, GEODSS = Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance System, GPS = Global Positioning System, GSSAP = Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program, JSpOC = Joint Space Operations Center, ORS = Operationally Responsive Space, SBIRS = Space-Based Infrared System, SBSS = Space-Based Space Surveillance system, SSA = Space Situational Awareness, SST = Space
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of Space Systems, Volume 7: Past Problems and Future Challenges
    YOOL KIM, ELLIOT AXELBAND, ABBY DOLL, MEL EISMAN, MYRON HURA, EDWARD G. KEATING, MARTIN C. LIBICKI, BRADLEY MARTIN, MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, JERRY M. SOLLINGER, ERIN YORK, MARK V. A RENA, IRV BLICKSTEIN, WILLIAM SHELTON ACQUISITION OF SPACE SYSTEMS PAST PROBLEMS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES VOLUME 7 C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/MG1171z7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015933393 ISBN: 978-0-8330-8895-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover image: United Launch Alliance Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Space systems deliver critical capability to warfighters; thus, acquiring and deploying space systems in a timely and affordable manner is important to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • China Dream, Space Dream: China's Progress in Space Technologies and Implications for the United States
    China Dream, Space Dream 中国梦，航天梦China’s Progress in Space Technologies and Implications for the United States A report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Kevin Pollpeter Eric Anderson Jordan Wilson Fan Yang Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Patrick Besha and Dr. Scott Pace for reviewing a previous draft of this report. They would also like to thank Lynne Bush and Bret Silvis for their master editing skills. Of course, any errors or omissions are the fault of authors. Disclaimer: This research report was prepared at the request of the Commission to support its deliberations. Posting of the report to the Commission's website is intended to promote greater public understanding of the issues addressed by the Commission in its ongoing assessment of U.S.-China economic relations and their implications for U.S. security, as mandated by Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 108-7. However, it does not necessarily imply an endorsement by the Commission or any individual Commissioner of the views or conclusions expressed in this commissioned research report. CONTENTS Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 12A. World Nuclear Forces, 2005
    Appendix 12A. World nuclear forces, 2005 SHANNON N. KILE and HANS M. KRISTENSEN* I. Introduction A decade and a half after the end of the cold war, eight states deploy more than 13 000 operational nuclear weapons (see table 12A.1). If all warheads are counted— operational warheads, spares, and those in both active and inactive storage—the eight states possess a total of roughly 27 600 warheads. In addition to these intact weapons, thousands more plutonium cores (pits) are stored as a strategic reserve. The nuclear arsenals vary in both size and capability, ranging from Russia’s 7360 operational weapons to those of India and Pakistan, whose combined arsenal still contains fewer than 100 warheads. Despite their different circumstances, however, all the eight states continue to maintain and modernize their arsenals and insist, publicly or covertly, that nuclear weapons play a crucial and enduring role for their national security. Both Russia and the United States are in the process of reducing their operational nuclear forces under the terms of the 1991 START I Treaty and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).1 China, India and Pakistan, on the other hand, may increase their arsenals somewhat over the next decade. France appears to have reached an equilibrium of some sort in the size of its arsenal, while the United King- dom will soon face a decision about the future of its nuclear arsenal. When the current Russian and US reductions have been completed, in 2012, these eight states (assuming no others have joined the ‘nuclear club’) will still possess a total of about 14 000 intact nuclear warheads.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System
    PROGRAM ACQUISITION COSTS BY WEAPON SYSTEM Department of Defense Budget For Fiscal Year 2008 February 2007 This document is prepared for the convenience and information of the public and the press. It is based on the best information available at the time of publication. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FY 2008 BUDGET PROGRAM ACQUISITION COSTS (Dollars in Millions) Page Army AIRCRAFT FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 No AH-64 Apache 1,139.4 1,536.8 905.4 1 CH-47 Chinook 687.6 1,159.0 782.0 2 UH-60 Blackhawk 788.5 1,206.3 793.3 3 ARH Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter 88.5 232.7 550.6 4 LUH Light Utility Helicopter 88.7 166.5 230.5 5 Navy E-2C/D Hawkeye 891.5 717.7 900.0 6 EA-6B Prowler 168.9 109.5 71.7 7 EA-18G Growler 731.3 1,017.5 1,591.5 8 F/A-18E/F Hornet 3,304.6 3,016.8 2,609.1 9 H-1 USMC H-1 Upgrades 372.9 451.6 522.1 10 MH-60R Helicopter 615.1 932.5 1,075.7 11 MH-60S Helicopter 613.3 629.7 547.5 12 T-45S Goshawk 278.8 410.6 90.7 13 E-6 Mercury 49.2 95.9 162.7 14 VH-71 Executive Helicopter 897.6 630.2 271.0 15 Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt 127.7 138.8 169.1 16 B-2 Stealth Bomber 343.0 434.2 560.1 17 C-5 Galaxy 337.3 378.2 602.3 18 C-17 Globemaster 3,858.2 4,770.8 653.5 19 CSAR-X Search and Rescue Aircraft - 200.7 290.1 20 F-15E Eagle Multi-Mission Fighter 327.8 301.8 120.5 21 F-16 Falcon Multi-Mission Fighter 542.7 518.3 420.0 22 F-22 Raptor 4,102.5 4,003.5 4,604.9 23 KC-X Tanker Replacement 24.1 69.6 314.5 24 DoD Wide/Joint C/KC-130J Airlift/Tanker Aircraft 1,956.8 1,481.1 1,589.2 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 4,569.3 4,992.8 6,142.2 26 Joint Primary Aircraft
    [Show full text]