SBIRS-GEO, GPS IIF, AEHF, and WGS all experienced delays in the launch of their first satellites. Although six years from ATP to first launch of WGS Block I satellite seems relatively short compared with the cycle times of SBIRS, GPS IIF, and AEHF, WGS Block I was a commercial-like buy, which should not have taken more than three years, a typical production cycle for a commercial satellite.
The four programs—SBIRS, AEHF, GPS IIF, and WGS—experienced major cost growth and schedule delays arising from difficulties in technology development, integration issues, parts quality issues, and obsolescence that led to costly redesign and rework. These programs took on the following risks that contributed to these difficulties and inefficiencies including those listed below:
• introducing immature technologies
• accelerating program schedules
• changing requirements midstream
• inadequate testing and systems engineering
• changing buy quantity and inefficient buying practice, causing long production gaps resulting in obsolescence.
That was from a RAND report, “Acquisition of Space Systems, Volume 7: Past Problems and Future Challenges.” Updated information would probably show even worse performance for these programs. The report used the Dec. 2012 Selected Acquisition Report. Between then and the Dec. 2016 report, for example, the GPS-IIIA Space Vehicle I available for launch was slipped by another 2 years (22 months to be exact). RDT&E costs for the first two GPS-IIIAs grew an additional $376 million, or about 14% in four years.
Leave a Reply