The Army Spends $312 Million Dollars For 33 Radar Sets

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

(This space reserved for a legally correct snark dump.) It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: I'm impressed - the DoD has actually bought something for less than ten million dollars each. Naturally globalsecurity.org sez:

Primary function: Mobile radar set.
Manufacturer: Hughes Aircraft Company
Length:
Shelter: 106 inches (269 centimeters)
Antenna/transceiver: 181.1 inches (459 centimeters)
Width:
Shelter: 82.7 inches (210.06 centimeters)
Antenna/transceiver: 82.7 inches (210.06 centimeters)
Height:
Shelter: 70.9 inches (180.09 centimeters)
Antenna/transceiver:
In operation: 145.7 inches (370 centimeters)
In transit: 82.7 inches (210 centimeters)
Weight:
Shelter: 2,400 pounds (1089.6 kilograms)
Antenna/transceiver: 3,200 pounds (1452.8 kilograms)
Power requirements: 115/200 VAC, three-phase, four-wire, 400 Hz, 10kw
Support equipment: two M923 five-ton trucks, two 10kw generators
Units: Headquarters batteries in artillery regiments, counter-battery radar platoons
Crew: 9 enlisted
Introduction date: January 1985
Unit Replacement Cost: $1,548,500

Marine Corps Inventory: 22

I wonder where the other $8 million dollar cost per unit went. Toilet seats?





First U.S. Army EQ-36 Radar Deploys to Iraq
By KATE BRANNEN
Published: 9 Sep 2010 17:17

After a protest by Northrop Grumman was resolved, Lockheed began development of the radar and was awarded its initial production contract in July 2008. To date, the company is on contract to deliver 33 systems. The Army has spent $312 million designing, developing, testing and purchasing the systems.

[Blue_Tires]

1. hey teabaggers: this is what government waste looks like..

[zipplewrath]

2. Unit replacement costs

When you "designing, developing, testing and purchasing" a system, those costs are spread over the costs of the initial units. At some point, you've paid those costs and the per unit price drops. That's probably what he "replacement cost" is, the price without the burden of development and qualification. It just goes to show that the development cost are the real drivers here. A Honda Civic would be prohibitively expensive if they only ever sold 33 of them.

The root problem is that the DoD is allowed to do their own "cost benefit analysis". The OMB and the GAO as well as the IG office often do reviews and complain that the DoD is overly willing to pay for dubious increases in performance. There also ends up being the problem like you outline with the new ships the Navy is trying to build. There comes a point where the DoD takes an attitude that "something" will get built, it's just a matter of deciding what it will do. That can get very expensive as they trash around trying to find a purpose for an expensive ship.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Non reoccurring costs associated with R&D and initial logistics and training

is you most likely answer