For What Seems To Be The Norm....

[Lucky13]

....since day dot of aviation, especially regarding military contracts, it's been over budget and over time!
How many times has a contract ended up being under budget and in time, has that actually ever happened?

Sorry admin, I couldn't really figure where to put this, so I put it here....

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe the NA-73X might qualify.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually it does happen but reporting good news is no fun!

 

[swampyankee]

One sometimes needs to wonder about the competence of the people writing specs. The USN spec'd the toilet seat for a P-3 variant that needed 24 hours of labor to make, from hand-laid fiberglass. The USAAF specs for a coffee maker on a transport aircraft could make coffee after a crash that killed everybody on the aircraft. In both cases, just buy what the airlines would have installed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One sometimes needs to wonder about the competence of the people writing specs. The USN spec'd the toilet seat for a P-3 variant that needed 24 hours of labor to make, from hand-laid fiberglass. The USAAF specs for a coffee maker on a transport aircraft could make coffee after a crash that killed everybody on the aircraft. In both cases, just buy what the airlines would have installed.

I was part of the investigation/ vendor audit when the $600 toilet seat incident hit the press. I've posted this on here before, Lockheed actually overcharged the government something like $35 a seat and refunded the error.

 

[Elmas]

Lockheed U-2.

 

[swampyankee]

At about that time, when at Sikorsky, I spent spent $700 to buy 3 bolts, just 3/8 in, 3 in long bolts. These were also drilled, with strain gauges installed inside. I was doing some fatigue tests on a rotating swashplate.

 

[Glider]

One sometimes needs to wonder about the competence of the people writing specs. The USN spec'd the toilet seat for a P-3 variant that needed 24 hours of labor to make, from hand-laid fiberglass. The USAAF specs for a coffee maker on a transport aircraft could make coffee after a crash that killed everybody on the aircraft. In both cases, just buy what the airlines would have installed.

The Nimrod had a water heater to make hot drinks with that was straight from the original Comet, it even had the bottle warmer in case a baby was on board. Everything else on board was over budget, but they did save on the water heater.

 

[Dash119]

I think Kelly Johnson lead several Lockheed projects that meet your criteria, including the U-2.

 

[swampyankee]

I think Kelly Johnson lead several Lockheed projects that meet your criteria, including the U-2.

I think that how much was spent on the U-2 and SR-71 won't be known, ever. Those records are likely classified and will likely never be opened for examination.

 

[Dash119]

I think that how much was spent on the U-2 and SR-71 won't be known, ever. Those records are likely classified and will likely never be opened for examination.

How about the F-80, T-33 or F-104?

Also, I don't know about if they were under budget on the U-2, but I believe the first flight was ahead of schedule.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think that how much was spent on the U-2 and SR-71 won't be known, ever. Those records are likely classified and will likely never be opened for examination.

I believe those numbers, once classified are now available. I believe the U-2 was about $1 mil per copy. SR-71$43 mil per copy. What will be confusing is some of the sustainment work was contracted at cost plus so the government accepted costs based on RFPs. I believe the 2 Have Blue F-117A demonstrators were ahead of schedule and under budget as well as the F-117A program.

I've said this before - many US DoD contracts are firm fixed price. Any delays in schedule or cost over-runs have to be approved by the government or the contractor picks up the tap or pays penalties for delays. Additionally many times cost increases are induced by the customer for additional things that weren't in the original contract budget. When the media picks up on these cost increases they rarely investigate why and immediately blames the increase in cost on the contractor.

 

[swampyankee]

I worked in the industry for a number of years. Many, but not all, of the overruns were due to poor project management practices, like changing specs, but some were due to poor basic specs, and a few were due to accidental or deliberate underbidding. The latter pretty much killed Norden, which drastically and knowingly underbid the Lavi radar, in the expectations they'd be able to renegotiate the fixed-price contract to profitability*, and Hughes, which drastically underbid the OH-6.

I believe one of the problems with some of the more recent overruns (DDX, JFX) are due because the DoD had outsourced too much expertise. The DDX, especially, seems to have also suffered from desire to stuff every new piece of bleading-edge tech possible into the ships.


-----

* Norden ended up spending something like a billion dollars (I don't remember the exact amount) on a fixed-price contract that was originally for about $650 million. When Norden said they'd not be able to meet performance guarantees within the contract amount, the Israeli government responded with something like "yeah, well, you signed this contract, see, and we're holding you to it." The DoD was in the habit of renegotiating fixed-price contracts when a company started having problems. The Israeli government wasn't.

 

[GrauGeist]

For many years, I was the manager of the Automotive department for the Telecomm company I worked at. One of the services we provided, was full outfitting of Public Safety vehicles (LEO/Fire/EMS, etc.) and our clients were local, county, state and Federal agencies.
Of ALL the agencies to deal with, the State (California) was the absolute worst. Their Com214 contracts had to be to the absolute letter - not one penny over or under and I even had a contract kicked back because of a typographical error (the word "harness" was misspelled in one of the line items) resulting in us having to resubmit the form in order to get payment.

 

[SaparotRob]

For many years, I was the manager of the Automotive department for the Telecomm company I worked at. One of the services we provided, was full outfitting of Public Safety vehicles (LEO/Fire/EMS, etc.) and our clients were local, county, state and Federal agencies.
Of ALL the agencies to deal with, the State (California) was the absolute worst. Their Com214 contracts had to be to the absolute letter - not one penny over or under and I even had a contract kicked back because of a typographical error (the word "harness" was misspelled in one of the line items) resulting in us having to resubmit the form in order to get payment.

Incredible.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe one of the problems with some of the more recent overruns (DDX, JFX) are due because the DoD had outsourced too much expertise. The DDX, especially, seems to have also suffered from desire to stuff every new piece of bleading-edge tech possible into the ships.

Agree 100% - I had a relative of an ex who was the director of procurement at Lockheed. The F-22 boarding ladder cost $6 mil to develop! A FRIGGIN LADDER! "Over engineered by a bunch of interns and engineers fresh out of college with no real world experience" - his words.

 

[swampyankee]

Agree 100% - I had a relative of an ex who was the director of procurement at Lockheed. The F-22 boarding ladder cost $6 mil to develop! A FRIGGIN LADDER! "Over engineered by a bunch of interns and engineers fresh out of college with no real world experience" - his words.

On the other hand, the ladder was probably the most advanced ladder ever conceived.

 

[GreenKnight121]

I believe the NA-73X might qualify.

For varying definitions of "complete".

The contract (signed 23 May 1940) for the NA-73X prototype specified a 120-day deadline to complete the aircraft. The "completed" airframe was rolled out in 102 days (2 Sept 1940) - but without an engine or the correct mainwheels.* Engine installation (and final assembly of a few "non-critical" components like the disk brakes) began 7 days later (9 Sept. '40), and first flight was on day 156 (26 October 1940).
North American NA-73


The first production Mustang I for the RAF (AG345) flew for the first time on April 23, 1941, well behind the original schedule.
Mustang I/IA for RAF



* Rollout was performed on borrowed AT-6 mainwheels.
The engine had been delayed at the Allison factory. The reason for the delay in engine delivery was because it was "government-supplied equipment" that was furnished on an as-available basis. Since the NA-73X was a private venture it was not allocated a very high priority in comparison with P-40s that were then rolling off the production lines.

 

[GrauGeist]

Was it over budget?

 

[Peter Gunn]

Was it over budget?

I think we both know who could answer that