By Jen DiMascio
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) yesterday gave every indication that it would support the nomination of John Young to be the Pentagon’s next top weapons buyer.
If his nomination is approved, Young will take the helm of the Pentagon’s weapons shop, which is battling cost growth and schedule overruns on a number of major programs.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, asked Young why so many programs are over budget and taking longer than anticipated during his nomination hearing.
“I believe there are unfortunately a number of factors. Our budget process seeks to make in some cases optimistic estimates about what it will cost to develop a system how much time it will take to deliver that system. And then we frequently set that requirements bar unrealistically high in hopes that the technology will come in a timely way to meet those requirements,” he said.
One piece of beginning to control the cost and schedules of major programs is to ensure that emerging technologies are more mature before they become product development programs, Young said in a written response to questions from the committee.
“Experience demonstrates that programs built on mature technologies are much more likely to meet cost, schedule and functional objectives,” Young wrote. “DoD [research and development] funds are an important, and primary, method for maturing technologies.”
As acting under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Young issued a memo that moves in that direction.
The memo, issued Sept. 19, calls for major programs to build two prototypes before entering into the development phase where major dollars begin to be invested.
The new policy on prototypes is a good one likely to see pushback within the Pentagon, said Jacques Gansler, who previously held the weapons-buying job in the Clinton administration.
The argument against mandating two prototypes is that the department saves money by pursuing just one, he said.
The Pentagon has pursued that approach in the cases of the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter and in the competition to replace the KC-135 aerial refueling tanker, Gansler said.
The down side is that DoD could miss out on innovation in the final product and the process, he said, adding that hopefully the defense secretary, his deputy and Congress will support Young’s policy.
If confirmed, the KC-X tanker competition raging between Boeing [BA] and a team led by Northrop Grumman [NOC] and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) will be one of the first major decisions of Young’s tenure.
The Air Force has said it expects to award the contract by the end of the year, though industry and congressional sources speculate the award could be pushed back as far as February.
Both sides of the competition have launched major public relations, lobbying and advertising efforts to promote the merits of their planes, and a protest of the contract award to the Government Accountability Office is likely no matter which side wins the contract.
One issue discussed on the margins of that competition has been whether the Air Force would split the purchase between both companies–a position the service has said is too costly.
In written testimony to the committee, Young said he would review the acquisition strategy for the KC-X tanker competition, but he did not commit to expanding the competition beyond the first 80 aircraft.
“While it is possible the program could benefit from competition beyond the initial procurement, I think there would have to be clear and compelling potential for cost savings for the taxpayers that would offset the potential cost increases of a new competition, an additional non-recurring investment for development, and a life-cycle premium for different type model series aircraft,” Young wrote. “The additional costs may be offset by the potential benefits of competition as well as allowing the insertion of beneficial new technology to the fleet. Frankly, it would be very difficult to accurately assess all of these factors today, thus I believe that it is premature to make this decision at this point in time.”
Young previously served as the director of Defense Research Development and Engineering and in that capacity recommended boosting the budget for science and technology by nearly $8 billion between now and fiscal year 2013. Young also led the Navy’s acquisition efforts and served on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s professional staff.
SASC yesterday also considered the nominations of Douglas Brook to be the Navy’s next comptroller and of Robert Smolen to become the deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.