Pentagon Study Urges Changes to SDB, Other Programs

Aviation Week & Space Technology 11/08/04
author: Robert Wall

The Pentagon should consider adding a second Small-Diameter Bomb supplier and it needs to focus more on establishing technology leadership in hypersonic weapons propulsion. These are among the findings of a new Pentagon industry base assessment.

This latest in a series of reviews conducted by the Defense Dept.'s Industry Policy office finds that in the field of "force application" the U.S. military faces greater competition than in the areas of "battlespace awareness" and "command and control," which were scrutinized earlier. Overall, the report identifies eight technology areas that warrant closer management, according to the third of five planned Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Studies.

In addition to specific technology concerns, the industrial policy office is making a pitch for an Industrial Base Investment Fund to begin in Fiscal 2007. Its aim would be to foster technical innovation. A start-up amount of $20-30 million is being sought. A potential beneficiary might be a small company like Aerovironment and specifically its high-altitude endurance UAVs, the report notes. While various military customers are interested in the technology, none has stepped forward with the requisite financing, something the investment fund could rectify.

Regarding specific technology concerns associated with maintaining U.S. dominance in the field of force applications, the Pentagon names six areas where the industrial base is deemed insufficient--two other potential technology problems fall into a slightly different category.

The study's most explosive conclusion may relate to the Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB), the 250-lb.-class GPS-guided munition being developed by Boeing for the U.S. Air Force. The report expresses concern about relying on a single source of supply. By limiting the program to one manufacturer the Pentagon gave up on competition and innovation, it says.

As a policy remedy, the report suggests the Pentagon "continue Lockheed Martin as a second source." In particular, the company should at least complete development of its SDB concept.

The recommendation that the Pentagon should consider reestablishing competition comes at a critical juncture for the program. SDB is currently under review by the Pentagon's Inspector General as part of the fall out from the guilty plea by former USAF acquisition official Darleen Druyun (AW&ST Oct. 11, p. 45). Lockheed Martin, which lost the competition to Boeing, specifically mentioned SDB as one of the programs it felt warranted review.

Defense Dept. actions to preserve its options in the small-bomb business shouldn't be limited to the prime contractor level either, the study suggests. As the Pentagon reviews merger proposals at second-tier supplier levels, it should keep in mind interest in maintaining industrial options in this munitions field. Exclusive teaming arrangements between Boeing and suppliers in this area should also be discouraged, the Pentagon adds.

The U.S. also has only one supplier for hypersonic weapon propulsion systems, the industrial report points out. That "may not be sufficient given the potential desire to adapt this technology to multiple weapons propulsion concepts."

MOREOVER, U.S. technology in this field is seen as merely on par with other countries. "To secure leadership, the department should provide additional [research-and-development] funding to demonstrate the technology and create competitive opportunities for weapon system designs," the report states. Pentagon actions should focus on demonstrating technologies and establishing producers for the technology.

The government is nuts on this one. Boeing won the bid due to the superior product and lowest cost. Lockheed had barely flown their version before the end of the competition. Boeing had dropped their bomb hitting targets something like 15 times.

The government claims it wants cheaper weapons, but adding a second supplier to a contract always (ALWAYS) increases costs. Plus, the article adds that Lockheed should be paid to continue development of their version of SDB. Why? For innovation. Give me a break. What, Boeing cannot be innovative on products they are building? Totally false. Boeing always looks at ways of improving their products. I'm sure Lockheed does the same. It is standard business practice for this industry. Afterall, any improvements you can think of will lead to new contracts. It is in Boeing's best interests to be innovative, even with their existing contracts/product lines.

The competition was held already. Lockheed did its best. Boeing did its best. Boeing's was better and cheaper. Boeing won the contract.

Lockheed always plays these political games. Lockheed wins a lot of contracts because of their marketing and politics/lobbying. Boeing isn't very good at the politics or marketing. But I'll never understand why the government always seems to buy Lockheed's stories. The taxpayers always seems to end up paying extra when they do. Good for Lockheed, not so good for Boeing. Or the taxpayer.