Life cycle cost Objectives Lesson objective - to discuss the fundamentals of Life cycle cost to include… What does it include? Why is it important? Expectations - You will understand why life cycle cost is so important and what kinds of issues it addresses At the end of this lesson, you should understand (1) the fundamental issues and (2) how to make life cycle cost estimates © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-1

Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Discussion subjects Review Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Operations and support Manned aircraft UAV applications © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-2

Review - Life cycle cost Development cost The cost of developing a system Considered a “non-recurring” cost Occurs only once (hopefully) Procurement cost The cost to buy a system once it is developed Includes a lot of “recurring” cost Costs incurred every time a system is produced Operations and support cost (Q&S) The cost to maintain and operate a system after purchase Includes the cost of maintaining crew proficiency Excludes the cost of combat operations Development + procurement + O&S  Life cycle cost © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-3

Customers want this to be as small as possible Review - cost issues Development cost Customers want this to be as small as possible New systems are expensive Most of the cost is associated with risk reduction, engineering and test Programs need “margin” to cover uncertainty Procurement cost This cost is sensitive to procurement quantity Repetitive tasks become more efficient Also sensitive to the size and complexity Aircraft empty weight is considered a cost driver Operations and support cost Most of the life cycle cost of an aircraft is the “O&S” O&S cost can be reduced by good up-front design © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-4

Review - LCC importance Pre-concept design Key technical issues addressed during this phase include: Overall needs and objectives Concepts of operation Potential design concepts Initial cost and schedule Effectiveness estimates Analysis of alternatives The technical work done during the pre-concept design phase establishes the initial cost and schedule estimate that the project will have to live with for the rest of its life The product of this phase is a set of initial requirements and cost, risk and schedule estimates © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-5

The cost driver - early decisions Cumulative Percent Of Life Cycle Cost Milestones I II III IOC Out of Service 100 95 85 70 50 10 Detailed Design Preliminary Design Concept Design Pre-concept Design Source – Defense Systems Management College, 3 Dec. 1991 © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-6

Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Next subject Review Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Operations and support Manned aircraft UAV applications © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-7

Parametric cost estimates Parametric models or cost estimating relationships (CERs) are used widely for aircraft cost estimating - By industry for initial cost estimates - By customers for proposal evaluation Used when little is known about the design - But also used to check internal consistency of detailed estimates Methodology updates occur periodically - Need to capture technology benefits and costs Most recent updates focused on advanced structural materials - Composite airframe materials drive airframe cost Although no CERs yet exist for UAVs, they will exist someday and we need to understand the approach * (1) Advanced Airframe Structural Materials, a Primer and Cost Estimating Methodology, RAND R-4016-AF, Resetar, Rogers and Hess, c1990 © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-8

Material utilization trends Aluminum Titanium Steel Composites Other F-111 (1967) 59% 5% 33% 1% 2% F-15 (1972) 52% 40% F-16 (1976) 79% 4% 10% F-18 (1978) 48% 14% 15% 11% 12% (E/F) 27% 23% ? 22% 13% F-22 16% 39% 25% 20% C-17 70% 9% 8% AV-8B 47% ?% 26% B-2 37% RAND data USAF/AFRL data RAND Data - Advanced Airframe Structural Materials, a Primer and Cost Estimating Methodology, RAND R-4016-AF, Resetar, Rogers and Hess, c1990 AFRL Data – Evolution of U.S. Military Aircraft Structures Technology, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Paul,Kelly,Venkaya,Hess, Jan-Feb 2003 © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-9

CERs capture overall air vehicle cost drivers 1. Size including airframe and empty weight, area, etc. 2. Performance including speed, specific power, etc. 3. “Construction” including load factor, engine location, area ratios, wing type, avionics weight ratio, etc. 4. Program including number of test aircraft, new vs. existing engines, contractor experience, etc. Of these, a few emerge statistically as real drivers* - Airframe unit weight (AUW) - Empty weight (EW) - Maximum speed (Vmax) - Number of test aircraft (NTA) - Airframe material type and composition Software should also be a driver (no data in 1990?) * (2) RAND N-2283/2-AF, Aircraft Airframe Cost Estimating Relationships : Fighters, December 1987 © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-10

Cost categories and elements RAND defines CERs in two major overall cost categories: non-recurring and recurring costs* - Non-recurring (development) cost elements are: - Non-recurring engineering hours (NRE) - Non-recurring tooling hours (NRT) - Development support cost (DS) - Flight test cost(FT) - Recurring (production) cost is normalized for 100 air vehicles and made up of the following elements: - Recurring engineering hours (RE100) - Recurring tooling hours (RT100) - Recurring manufacturing labor hours (RML100) - Recurring manufacturing material cost (RMM100) - Recurring quality assurance hours (RQA100) * Their methodology does not include engines, avionics, armament, training, support equipment and spares. These elements must be added. © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-11

RAND starts with an aluminum baseline cost estimate Baseline CERs RAND starts with an aluminum baseline cost estimate - Non-recurring cost elements NRE(hrs) = 0.0168(EW^.747)(Vmax^.800) (13.1) NRT(hrs) = 0.01868(EW^.810)(Vmax^.579) (13.2) DS = 0.0563(EW^.630)(Vmax^1.30) (13.3) FT = 1.54(EW^.325)(Vmax^.823)(NTA^1.21) (13.4) - Recurring cost elements RE100(hrs) = 0.000306(EW^.880)(Vmax^1.12) (13.5) RT100(hrs) = 0.00787(EW^.707)(Vmax^.813) (13.6) RML100 (hrs)= 0.141(EW^.820)(Vmax^.484) (13.7) RMM100 = 0.54(EW^.921)(Vmax^.621) (13.8) RQA100 (hrs-cargo acft) = 0.076*RML100 (13.9) RQA100 (hrs-non-cargo) = 0.133*RML100 (13.10) © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-12

RAND example, hypothetical all-aluminum fighter EW (lb) 27000 Typical application RAND example, hypothetical all-aluminum fighter EW (lb) 27000 Vmax (kt) 1300 NTA 20 Structure (lb) 13000 Production quantity 100 Typical labor rates (1999 $/hr)* Engineering $86 Tooling $88 Manufacturing $73 Quality Assurance $81 * From Raymer, page 588 - Inflation factors can be used to adjust these to current year prices (also required for material costs) © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-13

From equations 13.1 through 13.10 NRE(Khrs) = 10634 NRE($) = $914.5M Baseline cost From equations 13.1 through 13.10 NRE(Khrs) = 10634 NRE($) = $914.5M NRT(Khrs) = 4611 NRT($) = $405.7M DS($) = $389.4M FT($) = $577.6M Nonrecurring = $2,287M Total program (from NR + R) = $5.44B RE100(Khrs) = 7463 RE100($) = $642M RT100(Khrs) = 3636 RT100($) = $320.0 RML100(Khrs) = 19502 RML100($) = $1423.7 RMM100 ($) = $559M RQA100(Khrs) = 2594 RQA100($) = $210.0 Recurring($) = $3,155M © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-14

R(propul) = 2251*(0.043*Tmax + 243.25Mmax + 0.969*TiT -2228) (13.11) Other costs Engine cost - Raymer’s cost discussion (Chapter 18) includes an equation for engine procurement cost in 1999$ R(propul) = 2251*(0.043*Tmax + 243.25Mmax + 0.969*TiT -2228) (13.11) where Tmax = Maximum thrust (lb) Mmax = Maximum Mach TiT = Turbine inlet temperature (degR) ≈ 2000 - 2500 degR - For other propulsion cycles we will use $/lbm(engine) Avionics cost - Raymer recommends a weight based approximation of $3000-$6000 per pound ($1999) - We will use $5000/lb for both avionics and payloads © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-15

- Other quantities are adjusted for the “learning curve” Quantity effects RAND recurring cost methodology is based on production quantities of 100 aircraft - Other quantities are adjusted for the “learning curve” - A term used to describe the efficiencies that result from learning repetitive processes and tasks - Learning curve effects are generally expressed by exponential forms such as the following from RAND Cost (Qn) = Cost(Q100)*(Qn/100)^exp (13.12) exp(engineering hours) = 0.163 exp(tooling hours) = 0.263 exp(manufacturing hours) = 0.660 exp(manufacturing material) = 0.231 exp(tooling hours) = 0.714 exp(total program) = 0.356 where © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-16

Advanced material effects Advanced materials effects are applied to the aluminum baseline as separate cost factors Effects of advanced materials vary by element - Tooling (both nonrecurring and recurring) has twice the sensitivity to material type as engineering - Tooling focuses primarily on airframe structure - Engineering hours are driven by a wider range of design and manufacturing issues such as, design, integration, test, evaluation, etc. Overall effects are captured by historical Structural Cost Fractions (SCF) for airframe structure Nonrecurring Recurring NRE - 45% NRT - 87% RE - 42% RT - 82% RML - 67% RML - 67% RMM - 58% RQA - 69% © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-17

Complexity factors Used to capture labor hour and cost effects of different design and manufacturing processes - RAND uses complexity factors (CFs) to determine material effects by structural cost element NRE NRT RE RT RML RMM RQA Al 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Al-li 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.7 1.1 Ti 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.6 2.8 1.6 Steel 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.4 GrExp 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.8 4.9 2.4 GrBi 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.1 5.5 2.5 GrTP 1.7 2.0 2.9 2.4 1.8 6.5 2.6 © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-18

Advanced material effects are applied to each cost element Methodology Advanced material effects are applied to each cost element MWC (j) = SCF(j)*[CF(i,j)*SW(i)/ SF(I)]+[1- SCF(j)] (13.13) where MWC(j) = Material weighted cost element j SCF(j) = Structural cost fraction for cost element j (chart 24-18) CF(i,j) = Complexity factor (chart 24-19) SW(i) = Structural weight by material type See RAND Report R-4016-AF, Advanced Airframe Structural Materials, a Primer and Cost Estimating Methodology, for more application information © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-19

- Such a study is beyond the scope of this course UAV cost issues Unfortunately, there are no known UAV CERs and no consistent UAV cost data bases. An example: - Total procurement cost projected by the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Organization (DARO) for Predator in 1996 was $118M for 13 systems. - In 1998 12 Predator systems were listed as $512M or $42.7M per system - The same document budgeted $23.9M for one system for delivery in 1998 These contradictions exist across a number of UAV types and it is clear that a comprehensive cost study is needed to resolve the issues - Such a study is beyond the scope of this course We will take a simpler approach © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-20

- Cursory checks show this not a bad assumption UAV cost approach We will assume that manned aircraft CERs apply to UAV air vehicles and propulsion - Cursory checks show this not a bad assumption Global Hawk development cost ≈ $350M - The RAND aluminum baseline development cost CER for EW + payload = 11,100 lb, Vmax = 360 kts and two flight test aircraft predicts a development cost of $313M in $1999 (less engines and avionics) - Avionics development costs are not available Global Hawk procurement cost goal = $10M - The RAND aluminum baseline procurement cost CER predicts a unit 20 development cost of $15.7M - The customer acknowledged in 1998 that Global Hawk unit cost would be about $13M - Latest reports are that the airframe costs $16-20M © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-21

Other UAV system elements Little information is available on UAV control station and communications development and no CERs - Available data indicates Tactical Control Station (TCS) development costs exceed $100M Development costs for the Global Hawk/Dark Star common ground station (GCS) appear ≈ $250M We will assume, therefore, that control station development (including communications) ≈ 70% of air vehicle development cost Ground station procurement is harder to determine - Predator ground and communications station costs appear about equal at around $3M each - Global Hawk/DarkStar initial GCS procurement ≈ $25M each for 3 units. Latest reports = $45M - We will assume control station procurement including communications ≈ 1 air vehicle + payload procurement © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-22

Other system elements - cont’d We have no good information on UAV payload development costs - However, there are many payloads available off the shelf and we will assume development cost is limited to integration, which is covered under the air vehicle We also have no good information on UAV payload procurement costs - We will use Raymer’s assumed $5000 per pound parametric until something better comes along - This would imply that predator payload (450lb) costs are about $2.25M, far more than airframe cost - At a payload weight of 1900lb, Global Hawk payload cost would be $9.5M, about equal to original airframe estimate (recent USAF data cites payload at $11M) Despite the fact that some of these estimates are guesses, we will use them until something better comes along - It is better to guess than to leave something out © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-23

Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Next subject Review Parametric cost estimates Development Procurement UAV application Operations and support Manned aircraft UAV applications © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-24

O&S costs are driven by 2 factors Manned aircraft data O&S costs are driven by 2 factors 2/3 by manpower (pilots, operations, maintenance, logistics and other personnel) 1/3 by flight hours - Flight hours (and numbers of missions) drive maintenance and fuel consumption Average annual O&S ≈ 10% unit procurement cost - Typical SE fighter ≈ $3M/yr or $9000/flight hour Typical manned fighter O&S cost breakdown - Direct personnel (pilots, maintenance, etc.) = 40-45% - Pilots (10%), ops support (15%), maintenance (75%) - Approximately 20-30 maintainers per aircraft - Indirect (security, medical, facilities etc.) = 20-25% - Fuel and spare parts = 25-35% (≈ $2K/FH for fighter) - Other = 5-10% - 1997 O&S data shows USAF average annual squadron personnel costs at about $45K per person © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-25

Direct aircraft operating costs This is the portion of the O&S cost that is directly related to flight hours (fuel and spare parts) - Direct operating costs are key figures of merit for commercial operators - Airlines typically quote direct operating costs in terms of cost per seat mile - Others including the military use cost per flight hour ($/FH) and it appears to correlate with empty weight and speed © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-26

Other direct operating costs There is no information available on O&S cost for payloads, communications equipment and ground stations - We can assume that the equipment is reliable but that it undergoes regular upgrade and refurbishment at least every 10 years - We will assume, therefore, annual O&S cost to be about 8% of initial procurement cost Once again, we are simply making an educated guess but it is better to do so than to leave out an important element of cost - If our guesses are incorrect, we can improve them when we get more data - If we leave something out, there is no chance for improvement © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-27

UAV data Three O&S data points In 1997 DARO budgeted Hunter UAV operations and support costs were at about $17.5 million for about 2000 flight hours or $8750/FH (almost the same as as a typical manned fighter) In 1999 the VTUAV program established an O&S cost goal of 25% less than Pioneer at $6500 per flight hour Published lifetime (10yr?) O&S cost for 11 Predator systems (44 air vehicles) = $697M in $FY97 Other data - UAV squadron manning data provides insight to adjust manned aircraft O&S data for UAV applications - A 4 air vehicle Predator squadron, for example, deploys with 55 people, of which 30 are operators and analysts and 24 are maintainers (13.75 total people or 6 maintainers per aircraft) © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-28

UAV air vehicle application The minimum data required are number of personnel (maintenance and operators), flight hours (FH), direct cost per FH, other direct cost and indirect personnel Predator for example has 13.75 persons per air vehicle. At $45K per person per year (FY 97 est.), personnel costs would be $620K/year per air vehicle Also assuming an indirect personnel cost ratio of 25%, annual indirect costs would be $155K Assuming 1000 FH per year at $75/FH (chart 13-24 @ 100 kts), air vehicle operating costs would be $75K Payload O&S is estimated at 8% procurement cost/year = .08*(450lb*$5000/lb) = $180K Ground station plus comms is also estimated at 8% or cost/year = 0.08*(≈$6M) = $480K Estimated annual O&S cost for Predator, therefore, would be about $1.5M per air vehicle © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-29

11-12 System LCC (Base-year FY 1996 $M) * RDT&E = $ 213 Comparison From Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) 1996 Annual Report - Predator 11-12 System LCC (Base-year FY 1996 $M) * RDT&E = $ 213 * Production = $ 512 * O&S, etc. = $ 697 * Total = $1,422 At 3% inflation = $761M in FY99$ Our estimate for 11-12 systems (44-48 vehicles) would be $660 - $720M - O&S/production = 1.36 or 14% of production cost per year (assuming a 10 year Life Cycle) - Average manned fighter ratio = 11% © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-30

Development - Equations 13.1 - 13.4 System cost - summary Airframe Development - Equations 13.1 - 13.4 Procurement - Equations 13.5 - 13.10 Propulsion (procurement) - Eq 13.11 Ground Station + communications Development - 70% air vehicle development Procurement ≈ 1 air vehicle + sensor payload Payload (procurement) - $5000/lb Operations and support Air vehicle & payload operators - estimate number Maintenance personnel - chart 12-30 Other personnel - add 25% Air vehicle operating costs (inc. engine) - chart 24-27 Ground station + communications - 8% procurement/yr Payload - 8% procurement/yr © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-31

Operations and support Expectations You should now understand the basic concept design cost issues including Development Procurement Operations and support © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-32

Raymer, Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach Reading assignment Raymer, Aircraft Design - A Conceptual Approach Chapter 3 – Sizing from a conceptual sketch Chapter 3.1 : Introduction Chapter 3.2 : Takeoff weight buildup Chapter 3.3 : Empty weight estimation Chapter 3.4 : Fuel fraction estimation Chapter 3.5 : Takeoff weight calculation* Total : 25 pages Note – Use Raymer as a reference book. It is not necessary to memorize or derive any of the equations. Read the sections over for general understanding of the concepts. © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-34

Intermission © 2003 LM Corporation Life Cycle Cost 13-34