|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. Page 30 programs within this time window, DoD will have to change the current planning and implementation cycle in several ways. In Directive 5000.1, DoD defined principles for acquisition reform to reduce cycle times (DoD, 2000b). These “evolutionary acquisition” principles are based on a recognition that firm requirements for the entire life cycle of a weapon system cannot be specified realistically from the beginning; instead, the requirements must be developed interactively, based on the experience of warfighters using the system. Under this doctrine, delivery of the first unit would not be delayed until all mission requirements were met; the first unit would be a functional, but basic, system that would be upgraded at regular intervals through “block upgrades” of hardware and software until all requirements were satisfied. Each block upgrade would provide an opportunity to capture the most up-to-date technology. Periodic upgrades, which would be specified in evolving platform road maps, could be an effective strategy for addressing the aging avionics problem, especially if it were combined with MOSA architectures that emphasize ease of change. Colors of MoneyTo ensure that appropriated funds are used for their intended purpose, Congress has placed a number of legal restrictions on funds available to address the aging avionics problem:
The major budget categories associated with aging avionics are: research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E, designated as 3600 funds); procurement (designated 3010, 3011, 3020, or 3080 funds); and O&M (designated 3400 funds). Although in practice the lines between these categories are somewhat blurred, managers cannot use funds appropriated in one account to solve a problem associated with another account. For example, even though funds may be available to procure an avionics system in a given year, they cannot be used to solve a lingering RDT&E problem with that system. Commercial corporations make such decisions on a routine basis for the benefit of the enterprise, but DoD program managers are denied this flexibility. As a result, program managers spend a great deal of time trying to manage these “color of money” issues. In some cases (e.g., the fiscally constrained F-15 program), the amount of money in the various budget categories actually determines what can be done toward meeting avionics requirements, rather than the reverse (Durante, 2000). In each budget category, there are many competing demands, some of which take priority over reducing the TOC of avionics systems. For example, many of the avionics modifications that are funded, such as the installation of TCAS and the reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM), are capability improvements required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for all aircraft that fly in the new global air traffic control system. Few of these modifications will affect avionics with high TOCs. The Air Force needs a systematic funding that addresses both aging avionics components and capability improvements. All of the funds available for avionics modernization combined still leave a shortfall that will continue to increase unless the budget is increased to provide funds to support the flying-hour program and to meet the following needs:
Front-End FundingFrom the point of view of a program manager concerned with allocating the current year's budget, the least expensive approach to fixing an avionics problem is a customized, point solution for that problem. The likelihood that this short-term solution will be difficult to maintain or upgrade and will, therefore, cost more over the life of the aircraft is not an immediate concern. A more comprehensive solution, such as the
|
|
|||||||||||||||
