programs, too I
n the famous Boeing 777 development program of the 1990s, United Airlines was contractually permitted to penalize Boeing at $500 per pound, per airplane, per year for the revenue-producing life of the airliner if Boeing exceeded its weight goal of about 297,000 pounds.
For the 777, almost 0.25 of 1 percent of a 297,000-pound airplane can be the “stack-up variance”—caused by the ran- domness of small weight differences across 3 million or so parts in the airplane (over 740 pounds!).
In 1999, the U.S. Army’s Crusader advanced field artillery pro- gram’s design-to-weight requirement was halved by then-Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki as the program was readying for passage of milestone B. Te multibillion-dollar program was terminated soon after, before it could get very far into advanced development. Its weight requirement as a KPP was an outgrowth of force deployability concerns during the Army’s recent opera- tions in Kosovo, driven by the intra-theater airlift restrictions of the C-130 Hercules cargo plane. (Tese same concerns gave rise to an “interim armored vehicle,” the Stryker combat vehicle, which would have to face the same C-130 payload limitations of weight and size before the invasion of Iraq.)
On the heels of Crusader’s cancellation, the Future Combat Sys- tems program could also blame at least some of its horrific cost growth and ultimate failure on striving to make its weight goals. Some of us saw it coming.
Early in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, our High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles that were hastily
“up-armored” experienced parts failure when using non-designed solutions for ballistic protection. Adding armor without chang- ing drivetrain and suspension components increased weight and reduced mobility, speed, reliability and fuel economy. Later, when requirements grew for survivability against even greater threats from improvised explosive devices, we rapidly procured multiconfiguration Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles
Weight kills
COMING IN UNDER THE LIMIT
A Boeing 777 aircraft approaches the landing strip at Los Angeles International Airport. Requirements were incorporated into Boeing’s contract to produce the aircraft to ensure that weight issues were resolved, and similar issues affected several U.S. military programs, including the Crusader and the Joint Strike Fighter. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
that were designed to better operate with the additional armored weight that was necessary for force protection.
Perhaps one of the most recent and highest-visibility programs that long suffered from being overweight was the Joint Strike Fighter. Often criticized for trying to advance immature tech- nologies during its engineering and manufacturing development phase, it was the somewhat mundane but far-reaching impact of weight that contributed to this program’s cost and schedule growth back in 2004-2006. Te U.S. Government Accountabil- ity Office said it added almost $5 billion to lose 2,000 pounds in the developing aircraft that degraded its key performance capabilities.
—JOHN T. DILLARD, COL., USA (RET) HTTPS: / /
ASC.ARMY.MIL 141
COMMENTARY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168
