The increasing cost of weapons provided the stimulus needed for the Navy and Air Force jointly to study common engine requirements for the 1990s. Since engines require several years longer to develop than airframes, the Government sponsored the Advanced Technology Engine Study (ATES) to develop a long range propulsion plan for new aircraft needed through 2010. Because of the interaction between aircraft and engine in the design of the weapon system, aircraft engine companies teamed with aircraft companies to provide aircraft and engine conceptual designs to perform the expected missions for the 1990 time period. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) was used as the criterion in evaluating the merit of a number of USN and USAF aircraft systems.
Since operating and support costs (0&S) are the most difficult of LCC to predict accurately, this paper compares only development and production costs provided by the participating contractors with those costs determined using cost criteria developed by the Navy.
A Comparison of Navy and Contractor Gas Turbine Acquisition Cost
