Will Trump Try And Get A Better Deal On SLS/Orion?
Trump convenes Pentagon brass ‘to bring costs down’, Politico
“Donald Trump on Wednesday convened more than half a dozen top military officers, including for a discussion about “trying to bring costs down” on the controversial F-35 fighter jet and other high-priced Pentagon projects.”
Trump meets with U.S. defense contractors he criticized for costs, Reuters
“U.S. President-elect Donald Trump met on Wednesday with the chief executives of two major defense companies to pressure them to reduce project costs, part of his push to save taxpayer money on high-profile contracts. … “Trying to get the costs down, costs. Primarily the (Lockheed Martin) F-35, we’re trying to get the cost down. It’s a program that’s very, very expensive,” Trump told reporters after meeting with the CEOs and a dozen Pentagon officials involved with defense acquisition programs who he said were “good negotiators.” … Trump has said Boeing’s costs to build replacements for Air Force One planes – one of the most visible symbols of the U.S. presidency – are too high and urged the federal government in a tweet to “Cancel order!”
Keith’s note: I wonder what Trump’s reaction will be when his Transition Team tells him about costs/delays in the Boeing/Lockheed Martin SLS/Orion program. WIll he haul the CEOs back in for another deal making session?
Are you talking about deals such as giving the CEOs more to make himself look nice?
Perhaps he will do another negotiation theatre exercise but Thiel’s intrusion notwithstanding, he’s certainly not going to ditch SLS any more than he’s cancelled Air Force 1.1 or the F-35.
They’ll eventually figure out how to blow him off by telling him all kinds of promises about getting the costs down, which he’ll forget anyways until the next time he hauls them in.
Is this an example of how the president-elect will work? I’d argue there are much larger issues on his plate, particularly now, so why this, why now?
Because he is making America great again…
Smoke/mirrors. The solution was proposed at least a year ago, with the promise of a new F/A-XX in exchange.
“But if the NAVY needs a 1000 nm standoff… neither will cut it” hence the F/A-XX.
“The money saved from truncating the F-35C buy could be reinvested into the F/A-XX and a new long-range unmanned strike platform.”
“solution is to buy more advanced Super Hornets and its electronic attack variant in the form of the EA-18G Growler while investing in a stealthy new unmanned strike aircraft and a future F/A-XX. To pay for those programs, the Navy could cancel its portion of the F-35 buy and reinvest the money.”
“Once developed to its full potential, the Block III Super Hornet could perform most of the missions envisioned for the F-35C except penetrating strike”
http://nationalinterest.org…
We do not need ether the F-35 or the F-18. The era of manned combat aircraft is ending. Most strike missions can be accomplished with drones at lower risk. The F-18 and F-35 are not well adapted to close air support and yet one aircraft widely regarded as highly effective in this role, the Fairchild-Republic A-10, is being retired to help pay for the F-35. Defensively, the primary threat carriers face today is from antiship missiles rather than manned aircraft. The entire issue is too complex to be settled by a few tweets.
Agree wholeheartedly about the close air support role. A-10 was specifically designed to fulfill this role, and the recent wars in the Persian Gulf have proven its effectiveness. Replacing it with an aircraft with a far shorter loiter time, a smaller gun (smaller round, fewer total rounds carried), and adding a pittance of small precision guided munitions makes little sense.
I’ve heard this point made more than once. What do you suppose is the counter argument? How would those pushing the F35 for a similar role answer your objections?
They would point to its smaller, lower capacity, gun and its small precision guided munitions, and its ability to be refueled in midair as proof it could accomplish the close air support mission.
But, if you’re an Army grunt on the ground calling for close air support, do you want PGMs going off close to your position because the F-35’s gun is too small to take out the target?
Supporters of the F-35 point to stealth and sophisticated electronics, which would be useful in a conflict with advanced interceptors and radar-controlled surface to air missiles., i.e. US vs Russia or a Russia-supported client state. But would manned aircraft be superior to UAVs in this type of conflict?
Which is why F-35 is so expensive. It’s trying to be “all things to all people”.
You really should not need any of that for most close air support missions. If you’ve got ground troops in place, you’d better have the air space above it secured. So, your close air support aircraft really don’t need “stealth and sophisticated electronics”. They need long loiter times and a big fracking gun to take out ground targets with precision.
Step 1: Win the air war.
Step 2: Send in ground troops (along with providing close air support).
More likely than not, in keeping with the lack of intellectual honesty that pervades Trump’s every statement (to put kindly), there will be –
a- an announcement of some huge unspecified savings negotiated (a tweet)
b- no math or report to back it up
c- some odd number with a decimal as well (5.7, or any odd number will do, seeming rigorous, from deep thought!)
d – no change in the yearly budgets or what is planned, probably going up if anything
e – vague or incoherent defense (also putting kindly) by advocates, something about swamps
And then he will surprise everyone by doing the right thing.
I used to think the right thing be would be just to end the SLS (and Orion as well). I’ve come to see the right thing is also a much harder task – to have something ready in it’s place, or a path to getting that more likely, to get the right thing in it’s place, making effective and efficient use of the funding.
Ending SLS, well, it would fall apart on it’s own, probably before any 2nd or 3rd flight.
NASA had the right thing in hand in 2004. What a wasted decade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Based on Trumps track record in private business, I would never trust him completely to “do the right thing”.
Less costs, Less jobs. Promises.Promises. Build the Swamp-like SLS?
Is the ‘deal’ to take credit for the flexible path, common sense policy of shifting SLS $ to payloads to reduce $/kg and create new markets?
A HSF mission at the expense of Earth Science..a complete failure.
Expendable architecture is a bust in terms of cost vs the alternatives.
Leadership was cancelling a LV that could not loft Orion and architecture based on reuse as outlined by the VSE, not accepting BEO ‘apartheid’.
“Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
Obama tried to do the right thing and was beaten back by Congress. With Trump the contractors might simply offer him a side deal.
Trump traditionally would work with a lot of smaller contractors, then refuse to pay the total bill and give them a promise you eat those costs and I have other projects you can work on…. The smaller companies could not usually eat all the lawyers costs to fight him.
I wonder if he will use the same tactic with Boeing and Lockheed… chop your costs and I will make sure you get other work.
I’ve worked with business folk who did that to me…but no more than once each. 😉
However, I had the option of going elsewhere. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin exist because of U.S. Government contracts. They are appendiges of the Government. They’d fight the fight in court for the sake of their own survival. They’d take the new work while suing to get paid for the old and smile and shake hands with Trump the whole while.
Every dime in cuts directly reflects on some congressional district.. I can not imagine the congressional member from that district jumping on board for less spending in their district.
Of course not. Pork is job security for career politicians. Then, when something happens and they are replaced by a junior member, the program enjoys less support and can get cut. If it is a General Services Contract, it starts dying. If it is a Space Act Agreement contract, and the company/s involved have sold sufficient business outside the government, the tech can live on. Here’s the thing, the company is still a NASA partner, and thus still gets help behind the scenes even after the public funding runs out.
Sure the CEOs and prez elect can negotiate all they want, but unless it is followed-up with real program contract changes, it is all artificial.
I hope they can get past what must be the first question…”Why are we building this?”
And: “where is it going, and what’s there when we land?”
The debate on whether to keep or cancel SLS rages, but if SLS were canceled what would replace it to lift the needed mass required by human missions to go beyond low Earth orbit? Before anyone blows a piston I’m referring to missions that go beyond just planting a flag or one way suicide trip? The need for high mass does not go away, unless you have found some “wish upon a star dust” or have access to area 51, heavy lift is mandatory.
The existing DOD fleet/IPs can provide the launch mass. A lunar sortie is 120mT, so 6 launches of a single ~ 20mT LV.
Since 80+% is dirt cheap Class D propellant, risk can be taken to further reduce costs with reuse.
Common configurations can provided *demonstrated* reliability as a bonus, all at a fraction of the cost of SLS/Orion.
NASA has no hardware element that exceeds ~ 20mT unfilled.
You are obviously not a space architect nor a student of Space Operations and Risk.
I see you attacking the messenger, but not the message. Not very sporting of you.
While I’m one of the people in favor of accepting risk to reduce cost, I’m not sure if this will work for propellant. Or, more to the point, the things which go along with the propellant.
You’ll need a tanker to get the fuel from its initial orbit to the depot. And the tanker would need to be reliable enough to avoid crashes during docking. That’s not going to be a Class D payload.
You may need a whole new launch vehicle. I’m not sure if you could realistically have a high-reliability and low-reliability version of the same launch vehicle. At least not without giving up the cost advantages of low-reliability.
Many options for AR&D, from hold and grapple to a tug–which increases mass fraction by offloading the reusable hardware.
The lower stage could be reused to save ~2/3 LV costs, with the risks the cost of the upper stage and a few 100K for the propellant.
And if it crashed…oh well..include it in the risk cost analysis for LOM and determine the level of effort required for AR&D. Its not going to 100B ISS.
Specifically, the high cost “space tug” is based in LEO and is reusable. The “Class D” propellant payload is simply placed into LEO and sits there to be retrieved by the “space tug” which takes it to either a propellant depot or to the earth departure stage. The high cost equipment to transfer and refrigerate propellant is kept at the depot/departure stage.
Such a transportation architecture lends itself nicely to “low cost” but not necessarily “low risk” launch providers. And, you structure the contracts such that payment is made upon delivery of propellant to LEO. Launch accident costs are up to the launch provider to absorb, not NASA.
As for the “space tug”, if you’ve read about ULA’s proposed ACES upper stage, it might just fill that role quite nicely. Also, ULA has published many papers on LOX/LH2 propellant depots. If anyone has the technology needed for this part of the transportation architecture, it’s ULA.
How about commercial contracts with competing suppliers? Falcon Heavy Reusable can handle most requirements at 1/10 the cost of an SLS mission. Open a contract for what you want and let commercial suppliers bid on it as for ISS resupply and crew. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have superior solutions already in self funded development and other companies would join. SLS was never really a rational rocket design, it was a pork distribution system, the “Senate Launch System”.
To the big contractors (as to Trump) lawsuits are just part of doing business. The difference is that they can afford more lawyers than he can.