Although life cycle analysis is widely used as a management tool, considerable uncertainty still exists about its effectiveness with respect to economic tradeoffs, funding decisions, and resource allocations. This report evaluates some of the most widely used life cycle cost models: AFR l73-10 models (BACE and CACE); the Logistics Support Cost model; the Logistics Composite model; the MOD-METRIC model; AFM 26-3 Manpower Standards; Air Force Logistics Command Depot Maintenance Cost Equations; the DAPCA model; and the PRICE model. The models are rated within a framework incorporating a set of cycle cost elements and a set of cost driving factors. Color-coded illustrations summarize the results. The models are shown to have many shortcomings that limit their usefulness for life cycle analyses in which estimates of absolute, incremental cost are required. Specific areas are identified where driving factor/cost element combinations are not adequately addressed.

A briefing discussing the application of life cycle analysis to the evaluation of proposed investments of R & D and procurement funds. The primary focus of this study has been on aircraft systems and on decisions involving program changes and modifications to systems already in acquisition. In summary, it was observed that present procedures and techniques for making life cycle cost estimates can lead to decisions that have effects opposite to what the decisionmaker is seeking. Opportunities to reduce overall costs may be missed. R & D funds may be invested without achieving an expected O & S cost reduction, thereby increasing life cycle cost. The establishment of a uniform set of procedures for conducting and presenting the results of life cycle analyses should help in two ways. It would compensate for some of the shortcomings of current models and data, and it would provide a useful basis for the development of improved estimating techniques in the future.

This paper documents a Texas Instruments 'TI Programmable 59' calculator program that uses the U.S. Air Force Cost Analysis Cost Estimating (CACE) model described in Air Force Regulation 173-10, Volume I, USAF Cost and Planning Factors, dated 6 February 1975. The CACE model was designed with a 'building block' approach to estimate annual operating costs of aircraft weapon systems. The model is useful to Air Force organizations, other Government agencies, and government contractors for cost analysis, life cycle cost exercises, or studies concerned with cost effectiveness comparisons between weapon systems. The program described in this paper provides the user with a means of using the CACE model with a hand-held programmable calculator, eliminating lengthy manual computation or the necessity of using a computer. With its calculator connected to the Texas Instruments 'PC-100A Print Cradle, ' the program allows the user to select among several cost factor input methods, estimate output formats, and summarization options.

Evaluating the cost of acquiring major pieces of equipment also necessitates costing their life maintenance. Providing coverage of recent advances in this field, this book covers such topics as reliability improvement warranty, computer hardware/software costing, and reliability engineering.

On June 15, 2011, the Air Force Space Command established a new vision, mission, and set of goals to ensure continued U.S. dominance in space and cyberspace mission areas. Subsequently, and in coordination with the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Space and Missile Systems Center, and the 14th and 24th Air Forces, the Air Force Space Command identified four long-term science and technology (S&T) challenges critical to meeting these goals. One of these challenges is to provide full-spectrum launch capability at dramatically lower cost, and a reusable booster system (RBS) has been proposed as an approach to meet this challenge. The Air Force Space Command asked the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council to conduct an independent review and assessment of the RBS concept prior to considering a continuation of RBS-related activities within the Air Force Research Laboratory portfolio and before initiating a more extensive RBS development program. The committee for the Reusable Booster System: Review and Assessment was formed in response to that request and charged with reviewing and assessing the criteria and assumptions used in the current RBS plans, the cost model methodologies used to fame [frame?] the RBS business case, and the technical maturity and development plans of key elements critical to RBS implementation. The committee consisted of experts not connected with current RBS activities who have significant expertise in launch vehicle design and operation, research and technology development and implementation, space system operations, and cost analysis. The committee solicited and received input on the Air Force launch requirements, the baseline RBS concept, cost models and assessment, and technology readiness. The committee also received input from industry associated with RBS concept, industry independent of the RBS concept, and propulsion system providers which is summarized in Reusable Booster System: Review and Assessment.

Illustrates estimation of support investment costs and recurring operations and support costs through a Model for estimating Aircraft Cost of Ownership (MACO), which also provides a framework for future research. MACO is an outgrowth of an earlier evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the most widely used aircraft life cycle cost models. It combines new algorithms for major, maintenance-related costs with formulas drawn from existing models for other cost elements. MACO relates a full set of ownership cost elements to component level reliability and maintainability characteristics and to aircraft design, operations, logistics, and deployment parameters, although the MACO equations would have to be reorganized before they could be used to estimate costs according to the cost structure of the latest Cost Analysis Improvement Group guide. MACO computes resource quantities in units that can be related directly to Air Force programming categories, including base maintenance manning (by work center), depot manning, and recoverable spares inventory levels. Output and input parameters accommodate annual changes in system parameters and operating conditions such as component reliability and aircraft inventory size and activity rates.