Back to news

April 30, 2020 | International, Aerospace

The new Air Force One just racked up its first cost overrun

By: Valerie Insinna

WASHINGTON — Boeing will have to pay $168 million out of pocket to cover increased costs on the VC-25B Air Force One replacement program, the company said Wednesday.

Boeing attributed the overrun to “engineering inefficiencies” caused by the impact of COVID-19, but Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith said the program remains on schedule with a projected delivery of the first VC-25B in 2024.

However, Boeing's quarterly report to the Security and Exchange Commission noted future risk to the program's cost and schedule as a result of the engineering challenges. “We believe these inefficiencies will result in staffing challenges, schedule inefficiencies and higher costs in the upcoming phases of the program,” the company stated in the report.

It was not immediately clear how work on the VC-25B program had been disrupted.

“That charge was really associated with COVID-19,” Smith told reporters in an April 29 phone call. “As we have folks working virtually — particularly on the engineering side — as well as that's gone, we certainly experienced some inefficiencies that has caused us to re-evaluate our estimates to complete those efforts. And that's essentially what you saw today in our results and the charge associated with that.”

Smith added that although the program team has done a “good job” of managing the program in the face of changes caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic and is “executing very well on many fronts,” Boeing could not mitigate the added cost to the program this financial quarter.

Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper said he spoke with Boeing Defense CEO Leanne Caret last night about the problem, but because the issue was “late breaking,” he referred detailed questions to the program office.

On Wednesday night, the Air Force released a statement that — like Boeing — attributed the cost increase to “engineering inefficiencies.”

Just two weeks ago, Roper praised the progress of the program, which used virtual tools to complete its critical design review in March and wrap up a modification readiness review in April. At the time, the program was on schedule with no disruptions due to COVID-19, he said then.

The Air Force One replacement drew considerable attention in 2016 after then-President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that the program was too expensive and should be cancelled unless the cost—then projected as more than $4 billion—came down. In 2018, the Air Force awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price contract to modify two 747s into the VC-25B configuration.

" There has not been an increase to the $3.90B firm-fixed price contract with Boeing or the $5.3B VC-25B total acquisition cost," said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.

Although the total price of the program is estimated to hit $5.3 billion once ancillary costs such as new hangars and revised technical manuals are included, the fixed-price ceiling on the $3.9 billion deal ensures that Boeing will have to pay for any cost growth incurred while building the two new Air Force Ones.

In February, Boeing began making structural changes to two Boeing 747s at its facility in San Antonio, Texas — paving the way for those jets to become VC-25Bs. The jets will also receive upgrades including enhanced electrical power, specialized communication systems, a medical facility, a customized executive interior and autonomous ground operations capabilities.

“As planned in the baseline schedule, the next phase of modification is on course to begin in June 2020,” Stefanek said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/29/the-new-air-force-one-just-racked-up-its-first-cost-overrun/

On the same subject

  • US Army begins ‘light tank' soldier assessment without BAE Systems' prototype

    February 11, 2021 | International, Land

    US Army begins ‘light tank' soldier assessment without BAE Systems' prototype

    by Ashley Roque US Army soldiers are in the midst of a five-month assessment of two different ‘light tank' prototypes – one version by BAE Systems and the other by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) – but the former company has yet to deliver any of its vehicles, according to industry and the service. The army kicked off its Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) soldier vehicle assessment (SVA) on 4 January and it is anticipated to continue through to June, Ashley John, director for public and congressional affairs for the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, told Janes on 27 January. Under the larger programme, both BAE Systems and GDLS are under contract to deliver 12 MPF prototypes to the army and soldiers are slated to test out four vehicles of each variant. However, this testing phase began with vehicles from only one company – GDLS. We have received 12 prototypes in total, and four ballistic hull and turrets,” John said. “We will continue to receive the remaining prototypes throughout fiscal year 2021.” Although John did not disclose which company produced the delivered prototypes, a GDLS spokesperson confirmed that the company delivered its 12th and final prototype to the army at the end of December 2020. GDLS's delivery completion means BAE Systems has delivered only two ballistic hulls to the service. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-begins-light-tank-soldier-assessment-without-bae-systems-prototype

  • With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

    June 17, 2020 | International, Naval

    With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The US Navy will need to develop a roadmap for developing future fighter aircraft years after it became apparent that the Navy's mainstay F/A-18 Super Hornet would struggle to keep the carrier outside of range to be effective against Chinese anti-ship missiles. A provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act told the Navy to come up with a concrete plan for fielding next generation fighter aircraft, a move that comes months after congressional appropriators gutted 2020 funding for the Navy's next-generation air dominance program, taking the requested $20.7 million and slashing it to $7.1 million. By way of comparison, the Air Force requested $1 billion in funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance program, but saw a relatively minor 10 percent cut from appropriators that was cited as a “classified adjustment.” The SASC mark “requires the Navy to create a fighter aircraft force structure acquisition strategy and report on aircraft carrier air wing composition and carrier-based strike fighter squadrons to better prepare for potential conflicts envisioned by the National Defense Strategy,” according to a summary posted on the Committee's website. The Navy likely upset the congressional apple cart by zeroing out a planned buy of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. That move that should save $4.5 billion that the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX. So, what's F/A-XX? The Navy has tried to address the range issue with fielding an unmanned tanker, the MQ-25 Stingray, but that program could face delays if the Navy's operational schedule doesn't align to allow testing. But what exactly the F/A-XX will be is anyone's guess. The Navy finished an Analysis of Alternatives in June of last year and the spokesman for the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition told Defense News earlier this month that the program was in the concept development phase. But some experts believe that given the Navy's budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future, the F/A-XX should be a derivative of a current aircraft. Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer, said in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that it would make sense to keep buying the F/A-18s to keep the line hot for a potential F/A-XX. “I think the F/A-XX is going to need to be probably a derivative of an existing airplane rather than some complete new clean sheet design given the fiscal constraints we're under,” Clark said. “Therefore, keeping production lines going for both of our existing strike fighters is a good idea to allow both to be an option for this future F/A-XX.” In 2019, formed Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told Defense News that the next fighter should really be unmanned, and that going that route would help save some money. “The focus should be on the F/A-XX. If you really want range, that has to be the platform you are shooting for,” Work said. “Because with the Navy buying the F-35Cs, and the Marine [Corps] buying the F-35Bs and the Navy buying the Block III Super Hornet, you are not going to be able to afford two or three programs. So, the F/A-XX is the one you need to focus on. And if the analysis shows you need range, that points to unmanned.” But naval aviation has shown very little appetite for fielding an unmanned long-range fighter, and the Navy more generally has been tepid on unmanned technologies, according to former Chief of Naval Operations retired Adm. Garry Roughead, who testified at HASC alongside Clark. “I reflect that we flew an unmanned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier in 2012,” Roughead said. “2012! That has not happened again. Eight years, in my mind, of a hiatus in trying to advance this new technology is not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination.” Valerie Insinna contributed to this report from Washington. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/15/with-the-future-us-navys-carrier-air-wing-murky-congress-demands-a-plan/

  • Berlin prône une consolidation du secteur de la défense européen

    August 30, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

    Berlin prône une consolidation du secteur de la défense européen

    JOUY-EN-JOSAS, Yvelines, 29 août (Reuters) - L'Union européenne doit renforcer les synergies en matière d'équipements militaires pour optimiser les dépenses de défense des Etats membres, ce qui passe notamment par une consolidation du secteur à l'échelle européenne, estime le ministre allemand des Finances, Olaf Scholz. Au-delà des progrès déjà enregistrés en matière de politique commune de défense et de sécurité, des mesures complémentaires sont nécessaires, déclare le vice-chancelier d'Allemagne, selon le texte d'un discours qu'il devait prononcer mercredi à l'université d'été du Medef, à Jouy-en-Josas (Yvelines). Cela passe par “une approche commune pour le matériel militaire, ce qui signifiera davantage de coopération et un processus de consolidation de l'industrie militaire européenne, y compris via des fusions”, dit-il. “Nous devons encourager les fusions pas seulement lorsqu'elles se font au bénéfice de nos propres champions nationaux”, poursuit-il. A ses yeux, cela permettra de mettre sur pied une politique de défense commune plus intégrée, à même de permettre à l'Union européenne de garantir sa sécurité mais aussi de devenir un “acteur sérieux” de l'architecture militaire mondiale. La France et l'Allemagne ont donné l'été dernier, peu après l'accession d'Emmanuel Macron à l'Elysée, un grand coup d'accélérateur à leur coopération dans le domaine de la défense en convenant de développer ensemble un avion de combat de prochaine génération, mais aussi de concevoir en commun des chars, hélicoptères et autres matériels. Toujours dans le domaine aéronautique, le bilan de l'avion de transport militaire A400M d'Airbus est pour l'instant mitigé, le programme européen ayant connu des années de dérapage des coûts, de problèmes techniques et de retards multiples. A rebours du discours volontariste du dirigeant allemand, la France semble adopter une position plus mesurée dans le projet de rapprochement auquel oeuvrent les groupes français Naval Group et italien Fincantieri. Le ministre français de l'Economie et des Finances Bruno Le Maire a assuré lors d'un déplacement à Rome au début du mois que la France et l'Italie partageait “le même désir de boucler la fusion STX-Fincantieri, qui donnera naissance à l'un des plus gros chantiers navals civils du monde”. Mais une source gouvernementale française, s'exprimant sous condition d'anonymat, avait déclaré que Naval Group (dont Thales détient 35%) ne pouvait pas être privatisé et précisé que certaines de ses activités, comme la construction de sous-marins nucléaires, constituaient des actifs stratégiques ne pouvant pas passer sous pavillon étranger. (Myriam Rivet, Leigh Thomas et Matthieu Protard, édité par Sophie Louet) https://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRL8N1VK2SM

All news