2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Doc #86 - DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN With Attached Exhibits

Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Document 86 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 11
1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones

2
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
9
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs, NO. 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ

12
v.
13 DECLARATION OF
UNITED STATES CHRISTOPHER EDMUND
14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, GREACEN
15 et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN
19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and under penalty of perjury, I, Christopher Edmund Greacen,
20 declare as follows:
21 1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify in this matter. The information in this
22
declaration is based on my personal knowledge.
23
2. I reside at 44 Tuatara Road on Lopez Island in Washington. I have lived on Lopez
24
for 24 years.
25
26
Bricklin & Newman, LLP

Attorneys at Law
DECLARATION OF 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle WA 98101
CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN - 1 Tel. (206) 264-8600
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 3. I am a member of COER. I joined COER on 25 June, 2019 because I am concerned

2 by the noise and environmental impacts of the EA-18G Growler fleet expansion on Lopez Island, the
3
Salish Sea region, and the planet.
4
4. I have Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Energy and Resources from the University of
5
California at Berkeley and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Physics from Reed College. I work as a
6
7 consultant on rural electrification. My clients include the World Bank, the Inter-American
8 Development Bank, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
9 5. I reviewed the following documents regarding Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions in

10
preparing my declaration.
11
a. The NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler Draft Environmental Impact
12
Statement;
13
b. The NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler Final Environmental Impact
14
15 Statement;
16 c. The Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR)

17 “Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)” for EA-18G Growler Aircraft (EA-18G)” dated December 31,
18
2012 (herein, “2012 SAR”).1 The 2012 SAR is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
19
d. An email I received from John Ordonio, the Fuels Management Officer at NAS
20
Whidbey Island, which stated, “In FY2016 all EA18G Growlers for NAS Whidbey Island were issued
21
22 20,253,643 gallons of Jet fuel.” I received the email in response to a Freedom of Information Act
23 (FOIA) request I made on December 7, 2017. The email is attached to this declaration as Exhibit B.
24
25
26 1
The DAMIR SARS each included a variety of dates. I am using the date that appears in the top righthand
corner of each page of the SAR (after the cover page) to identify it.
Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 e. The) “Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)” for EA-18G Growler Aircraft

2 (EA-18G)” dated December 2015 (herein, “2015 SAR”). The 2015 SAR is attached to this
3
declaration as Exhibit C.)
4
f. An email from Brigman Harman to Zachary Griefen dated October 19, 2020,
5
on the topic of aircraft emissions above 3,000 feet. Mr. Harman’s email is attached to this
6
7 declaration as Exhibit D.
8 g. An EPA December 1992 document titled “Procedures for Emission
9 Inventory Preparation” that was referred to in Brigman Harman’s October 19, 2020 email. GRR
10
14684 et seq.
11
6. Greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to the amount of fuel consumed by the
12
Growlers. If the fuel consumption is underestimated, the emissions will be underestimated to the same
13
degree.
14
15 7. As described below, there are significant discrepancies between the fuel consumption
16 calculations in the EIS on the one hand, and several other military data sets on the other hand. The
17 data sets with figures that vary from those in the EIS include the Department of Defense and Navy
18
records of actual EA-18G fuel consumption at Whidbey NAS, as well as fuel consumption
19
specifications in Selected Acquisition Reports for the EA-18G.
20
8. The discrepancies between fuel consumption data and the EIS fuel estimates likely is
21
22 linked to two other discrepancies I discovered. One, there are significant internal inconsistencies in
23 the EIS regarding the distance that Growlers travel on their arriving and departure flight paths, as well
24 as discrepancies between flight paths mapped in the EIS and observed EA-18G flight paths. In every
25 case, the distance traveled discrepancy operates to minimize the amount of Growler GHG emissions
26
calculated in the EIS.
Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 9. Two, in calculating the pollutants emitted (including CO2), the EIS stopped once the
2 plane exceeded an altitude of 3,000 feet. Counsel for the Navy, Brigman Harman, made this clear in
3
an October 19, 2020 email to Zachary Griefen, Exhibit D hereto. There, the Navy’s counsel explained
4
that “the Navy did not consider usage of the entire amount of fuel issued to Navy Growlers” and
5
referred Mr. Griefen to GRR 14699 and 14868. GRR 14699 and 14868 are pages within EPA’s
6
7 December 1992 “Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation.” Those pages indicate that models
8 for other pollutants cutoff at 3,000 feet. It appears from Mr. Harman’s reference to those documents
9 that the EIS used 3,000 feet as the cut off not just for the pollutants at issue in the 1992 document but
10
also for calculating greenhouse gas pollutants. The 3,000 foot mixing height in the 1992 document is
11
used because of its link to ground level pollution concentrations that impact public health (particularly
12
in urban areas and particularly during rush hour, see, e.g., GRR 14842). Because EPA was focused on
13
the public health impacts of ground level air pollution, the analysis considered only emissions
14
15 relatively close to the ground, i.e., below 3,000 feet. But greenhouse gas emissions matter at any
16 altitude and the EIS acknowledges that the EA-18Gs covered in this EIS fly above 3,000 feet at times.
17 GRR 150351. The EIS erred in failing to include greenhouse gas emissions above 3,000 feet.
18
COMPARISON OF EIS FORECASTS WITH WHIDBEY RECORDS OF ACTUAL
19 FUEL CONSUMPTION
20 10. The accuracy of the EIS estimates of fuel use can be checked by focusing on the EIS
21 estimates for the no action alternative. Those estimates should be consistent with the actual fuel
22
consumed in recent years when flight operations were similar to that used for the no action alternative.
23
As per its definition in the National Environmental Policy Act, the no action alternative considers what
24
would happen if the Navy’s EA-18G program at NAS continued to operate with no changes.
25
26

Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 11. Actual 2016 fuel consumption is more than double the amount calculated in the EIS
2 no action scenario. I received the actual NAS Whidbey Island EA-18G fuel consumption data in
3
response to my FOIA request. After long delays, the Navy eventually provided this response: “In
4
FY2016 all EA18G Growlers for NAS Whidbey Island were issued 20,253,643 gallons of Jet fuel.”
5
Ex. B. Since the EIS indicates a gallon of jet fuel weighs 6.79 pounds,2 20,253,643 gallons is
6
7 equivalent to 137,522,236 pounds of fuel. This figure is more than twice the 63,153,849 pounds of jet
8 fuel used in the FEIS calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for the no action alternative. GRR
9 159667.
10
12. Because the actual fuel use was 2.18 times more than was assumed for the EIS
11
emission calculations, the actual greenhouse gas emissions are roughly 2.18 times more than the EIS
12
projections, too.
13
13. The FEIS calculated 98,285.7 tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions for the no
14
15 action alternative. Given that actual fuel use was 2.18 times that used in the EIS calculation, the EIS
16 greenhouse gas emissions for the no action alternative should have been more than double that
17 reported amount, that is, 210,626 tons per year.
18
14. The flaw in the fuel use permeates the remainder of the EIS analysis, too. As described
19
in more detail below, the EIS used the same method to estimate fuel use for the no action alternative
20
as it did for the various action alternatives. If that method resulted in underestimating fuel use for the
21
22 no action alternative by half, the EIS underestimated the fuel use for the action alternatives by half,
23 too. And if the fuel use was underestimated by half, so were the emissions.
24
25
26
2
See footnote 5.
Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EIS METHOD FOR CALCULATING EMISSIONS

2 15. The EIS authors did readers no favors by scattering the GHG emissions calculation
3
methodology description in key sentences over a hundred disassociated pages in the 716-page DEIS
4
volume 1 (1080 pages for the FEIS), with data in tables in a separate volume. I have collected these
5
scattered sentences below:
6
7 a. “GHG emissions have been calculated using resources and emission factors
8 as described in Section 4.4 (Air Quality), and detailed assumptions and calculations are provided
9 in Appendix B[.]” GRR 105636 (DEIS); GRR 151046 (FEIS).

10
b. “Emissions estimates were developed using the Navy’s Aircraft
11
Environmental Support Office (AESO) emission factors for aircraft emissions (AESO 2014, 2015a
12
and b)[.]” GRR 105204 and GRR 105477 (DEIS). The FEIS has identical text but with updated
13
references to AESO 2015, 2017a, and 2017b. GRR 150772.
14
15 c. “Since air emissions calculations require specific operation counts by type, the
16 operations data used for these calculations were consistent with the detailed operations count and type
17 estimates used in the noise analysis (see Appendix A, Aircraft Noise Study). The AESO estimates a
18
30-second maximum setting (with AB [afterburner]) time-in-mode for Growler take off; however,
19
emission factors have been adjusted to account for a more accurate estimate at NAS Whidbey Island
20
of 20 seconds at this setting (NAS Whidbey Island Operations Command, 2016).” GRR 150772 (FEIS
21
22 Section 4.4.2.1.3) and GRR 150778 (stating: “Emissions estimation methods and assumptions are the
23 same as described in Section 4.4.2.1.3”).
24 d. Note 3 (in tiny, 5-point text) on the FEIS table “Baseline Average Year
25 Emissions NAS Whidbey Island Complex” (GRR 159665) states “Emissions calculated using AESO
26

Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 Report emission factors: #Ops x EF(lbs emission/op)/2000.”3 This note is repeated as note 3 in the
2 emissions calculations tables (which includes CO2 emissions and fuel consumption) for every
3
scenario, GRR 159667–159745.
4
16. From these descriptions and especially from note 3 on the tables at GRR 159667–
5
159745, the approach employed in the EIS to estimate emissions from Growlers can be discerned.
6
7 The EIS starts with the published fuel consumption from the AESO for each type of flight operation
8 and multiplies that by the number of expected operations in each scenario. For example, each “Touch-
9 and-Go” operation is assumed to use 706 pounds of fuel. In the baseline scenario, there are 4,724 of
10
these operations.4 Thus, cumulative annual fuel consumption estimated for “Touch-and-Go” in the
11
baseline scenario is calculated in the FEIS as: 706 x 4,724 = 3,334,791 pounds of fuel. GRR 159665.
12
17. Using this methodology and aggregating across all operation types that the Growler
13
fleet conducts, the DEIS calculates that in the no action average year scenario (no additional
14
15 Growlers), 65,025,601.8 pounds5 of jet fuel are consumed. GRR 104706. The FEIS values are similar
16 at 63,153,849.3 pounds, reflecting slight changes in estimates of baseline year operations counts. GRR
17 159667.
18
18. This stands in stark contrast to Navy fuels management officer’s report (Ex. B hereto)
19
that Growlers at Whidbey NAS were issued 20,253,643 gallons (137,522,239 pounds) of fuel in
20
FY2016, more than double the baseline case calculated in the FEIS.
21
22
23 3
Emissions in the tables are reported in tons per year, so the “2000” in this calculation reflects the conversion
factor of 2000 pounds per US ton.
4
24 GRR 104703 (DEIS); GRR 159665 (FEIS).
5
The tables in the DEIS and FEIS indicate fuel amounts in pounds as well as gallons. For example, the table for
25 the “no action average year Air Emissions NAS Whidbey Island Complex” (GRR 104706) indicates 65,025,601.8 pounds
of jet fuel and 9,576,671.84 gallons of jet fuel. The conversion implicit in these numbers is that 1 gallon of EA-18G fuel
26 weighs 65,025,601.8 divided by 9,576,671.84 = 6.79 pounds. The same factor appears to have been used throughout the
emissions calculations tables for all scenarios in the DEIS and FEIS.

Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 19. If it is true that the number of each type of operation in the baseline year is roughly
2 similar to the number of operations that Growlers at Whidbey flew in FY2016, then the only possible
3
explanation for the more than twofold difference between the more than 65 million pounds stated in
4
the DEIS (or the more than 63 million pounds stated in the EIS) and actual more than 137 million
5
pounds of Growler jet fuel consumption as reported by the Fuel Management Officer is that the Navy
6
7 is grossly under-estimating actual fuel consumption per operation.
8 20. Because all scenarios in the FEIS are quantified by the numbers of each type of
9 operation, emissions factors per operation that under-report actual fuel consumption for each operation
10
affect all scenarios. A similar underestimation applies when the faulty emissions factors are multiplied
11
by the quantity of operations assumed in each alternative. In other words, if the no action emissions
12
estimates underestimate reality by more than 50%, the other scenarios will as well.
13
21. The CO2 emissions calculations in the FEIS underestimate fuel consumption by a
14
15 factor of at least two. In the no action case, the sum total of fuel consumption in the FEIS should
16 approximate the actual fuel consumption reported by the NAS fuel manager. The twofold discrepancy
17 indicates that there was no effort to calibrate the projected fuel consumption figures with the actual
18
consumption in real world conditions. Correcting this error more than doubles CO2 emissions in all
19
scenarios.
20
EIS ESTIMATES ALSO CONTRARY TO SAR REPORTS FOR 2012 AND 2015
21
22 22. The calculation of fuel consumption in the EIS is similarly out of step with EA-18G
23 fuel consumption estimates in the 2012 and 2015 SARs. The SARs include fuel consumption estimates
24 for budgeting purposes. The first indication I had that the EIS greenhouse gas emission estimates were
25 off was by reference to the 2012 SARs. At that time (when the DEIS was out for public comment), I
26

Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 only had the 2012 SAR. But referencing that, I could see that the EIS likely was under-estimating
2 greenhouse gas emissions.
3
23. The fuel consumption numbers for the EA-18G Growler specified in the 2012 SAR
4
are 1,304 gallons per hour for 34.2 hours per month, equivalent to 535,161 gallons (3,633,744 pounds)
5
per year, per aircraft. Ex. A, 2012 SAR at 35. The fuel consumption numbers in the DEIS yield
6
7 792,995 pounds of fuel per year per aircraft under the “no action” alternative. (GRR 104706 and
8 assuming 82 aircraft as shown in the “no action” average year table at GRR 104705.) That is, the fuel
9 consumption specified in the 2012 SAR is nearly five-fold higher than the fuel consumption
10
assumptions in the DEIS.
11
24. Subsequent to the close of the DEIS comment period, I also gained access to the (then)
12
most recent SAR. A similar discrepancy with the EIS is found by reference to fuel consumption
13
estimates in the 2015 SAR. The 2015 SAR specifies EA-18G fuel consumption as 1,305 gallons per
14
15 hour for 26.4 flight hours per month, equivalent to 413,424 gallons (2,807,149 pounds) per year, per
16 aircraft. Ex. C., 2015 SAR at 37. This is more than 3.5 times higher than the fuel consumption
17 calculated in the EIS.
18
UNDERLYING CAUSES OF EIS FLAWS
19
25. Underlying, and perhaps partially explaining, the errors in fuel consumption
20
calculations described above are inconsistencies regarding the flight distances that the EIS models.
21
22 The EIS fuel consumption estimates are based on the length of each flight segment and the burn rate
23 during that segment. The EIS pollutant impacts calculations narratively describe Growlers using a
24 straight-in arrival on a 10-mile glide path. See, e.g., GRR 150348, GRR 150603, GRR 150652, and
25 GRR 150697. But flight paths are also shown in maps. See GRR 105154 (DEIS Figure 3.1-3); GRR
26
150324 (FEIS at 3-8). These maps show flight paths with a 14-mile glidepath, 40% longer than the
Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
1 flight track used for the emission forecasts. Assuming the Navy’s flight path maps are correct, the
2 EIS’s narrative description of shorter flight paths to calculate emissions would explain part of the
3
underestimations of emissions.
4
26. Simply put, one way the EIS underestimates fuel consumption in its scenarios is failing
5
to take into consideration the flight paths mapped in the EIS. These, in turn, fail to account for the
6
7 actual flight paths that EA-18G aircraft take in training. It is no wonder, then, that estimated gallons
8 of jet fuel consumed by EA-18G aircraft (and thus greenhouse gas emissions) are unrealistically low.
9 And, as explained in paragraph 9, above, some of the discrepancy likely also results from the EIS
10
cutting off the emission calculations once the plane reaches 3,000 feet.
11
NAVY FAILURES RELATED TO MY COMMENT LETTER
12
27. My comment letter on the GHG emissions calculations in the EIS was submitted to
13
the Navy on February 22, 2017, in order to comply with comment deadlines. That comment letter
14
15 appears in the administrative record at GRR 154092–154093. In that comment letter, I identified the
16 same two issues related to climate change that I have discussed in more detail in this declaration:
17 a. EIS emissions estimates should be validated with actual historic Growler fuel
18
consumption. I wrote, “The approach of breaking up flight ops into component parts and estimating
19
the fuel consumption and GHG emissions for each should be validated with an accounting of the actual
20
fuel consumption used by Growlers at Whidbey NAS for the most recent year on record.” I noted,
21
22 “Chris Greacen filed a Freedom of Information Act request on 8 December, 2016 for this information
23 but has received no response.”
24 b. The furthest flight paths of operations used in the GHG calculations is 10 miles,
25 and does not match the much wider flight tracks shown in figure 3.1-3 (page 3-8), not to mention that
26

Attorneys at Law
Seattle WA 98101
Fax. (206) 264-9300
Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Document 86-1 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 38
EXHIBIT A
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
RCS: DD-A&T(Q&A)823-378
EA-18G Growler Aircraft (EA-18G)

As of December 31, 2012
Defense Acquisition Management

Information Retrieval
(DAMIR)
May 21, 2013

16:04:12 UNCLASSIFIED
EA-18G Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Document 86-1 Filed 03/30/21 PageDecember
3 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Table of Contents
Program Information 3
Responsible Office 3
References 3
Mission and Description 4
Executive Summary 5
Threshold Breaches 6
Schedule 7
Performance 8
Track To Budget 11
Cost and Funding 12
Low Rate Initial Production 21
Foreign Military Sales 22
Nuclear Cost 22
Unit Cost 23
Cost Variance 26
Contracts 29
Deliveries and Expenditures 34
Operating and Support Cost 35
May 21, 2013

16:04:12 UNCLASSIFIED 2
4 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Program Information
Program Name
DoD Component
Navy
Responsible Office
Responsible Office
CAPT Frank Morley, USN Phone 301-757-7669
Program Executive Officer (PMA265) Fax 301-757-7520
Bldg 2272, Suite 445, NAVAIRSYSCOMHQ DSN Phone 757-7669
47123 Buse Road, Unit IPT DSN Fax 757-7520
Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547
francis.morley@navy.mil Date Assigned July 14, 2011
References
SAR Baseline (Production Estimate)

Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) Approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) dated July 18, 2007
Approved APB
Navy Acquisition Executive (NAE) Approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) dated February 15, 2011
May 21, 2013

5 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Mission and Description
The EA-18G is the fourth major variant of the F/A-18 family of aircraft. The EA-18G serves as the Navy's
replacement for the EA-6B providing a capability to detect, identify, locate, and suppress hostile emitters. The EA-
18G provides organic accurate emitter targeting for employment of onboard suppression weapons such as High-
Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). The EA-18G aircraft is a missionized F/A-18F airframe coupled with the
integration of its primary Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) systems that include the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming
System (TJS) pods, AN/ALQ-218 Receiver, Communication Countermeasures Set (CCS) with functionality
equivalent to the USQ-113, and the Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminal (MATT).
May 21, 2013

6 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Executive Summary
The procurement profile of the FY 2014 President's Budget added 21 EA-18G aircraft in FY 2014. This increased
the total Program of Record from 114 to 135. The increase in aircraft and related support caused Procurement
and Operating and Support cost breaches. A Program Deviation Report is being developed.
As of January 31, 2013, EA-18G aircraft have flown 57,903 hours.
As of March 27, 2013, the program has delivered 85 aircraft to the fleet.
The F/A-18E/F and EA-18G are software-intensive systems that share a common Operational Flight Program
(OFP). The current OFP is the H6E System Configuration Set (SCS), which was released to the fleet in October
2011. The H8E SCS represents the latest software upgrade that will replace the H6E SCS following Operational
Test (OT). The program office delayed H8E entry into OT by four months to correct weapon integration and
interoperability issues. The issues were resolved, and OT began in June 2012. H8E fleet release is scheduled
for July 2013. Therefore, there are no significant software-related issues with this program at this time.
May 21, 2013

7 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Threshold Breaches
APB Breaches Explanation of Breach

Schedule The procurement profile of the FY 2014 President's Budget added 21 EA-
Performance 18G aircraft in FY 2014. This increased the total Progam of Record from
114 to 135. The increase in aircraft and related support caused
Cost RDT&E
Procurement and Operating and Support cost breaches. A
Procurement Program Deviation Report is being developed.
MILCON
Acq O&M
O&S Cost
Unit Cost PAUC
APUC
Nunn-McCurdy Breaches
Current UCR Baseline
PAUC None
APUC None
Original UCR Baseline
PAUC None
APUC None
May 21, 2013

8 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Schedule
Current APB
SAR Baseline Current
Milestones Production
Prod Est Estimate
Objective/Threshold
Milestone B DEC 2003 NOV 2003 APR 2004 DEC 2003
Critical Design Review (CDR) APR 2005 APR 2005 OCT 2005 APR 2005
Milestone C JUL 2007 APR 2007 OCT 2007 JUL 2007
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation SEP 2008 SEP 2008 MAR 2009 SEP 2008
(IOT&E)(Start)
Full Rate Production (FRP) APR 2009 APR 2009 NOV 2009 NOV 2009
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) SEP 2009 SEP 2009 MAR 2010 SEP 2009
Change Explanations
None
May 21, 2013

9 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Performance
Current APB
SAR Baseline Demonstrated Current
Characteristics Production
Prod Est Performance Estimate
Objective/Threshold
Net-ready EA-18G EA-18G EA-18G Meets all Meets all
must fully must fully must fully Net-Centric Net-
support support support Require- Centric
execution of execution of execution of ments Require-
joint critical joint critical joint critical ments
operational operational operational
activities activities activities
identified in identified in identified in
the the the
applicable applicable applicable
joint and joint and joint and
system system system
integrated integrated integrated
architectures architectures architectures
and the and the and the
system must system must system must
satisfy the satisfy the satisfy the
technical technical technical
requirements requirements requirements
for transition for transition for transition
to Net- to Net- to Net-
Centric Centric Centric
military military military
operations operations operations
to include: 1) to include: 1) to include: 1)
DISR DISR DISR
mandated mandated mandated
GIG IT GIG IT GIG IT
standards standards standards
and profiles and profiles and profiles
the TV-1, 2) the TV-1, 2) the TV-1, 2)
DISR DISR DISR
mandated mandated mandated
GIG KIPs GIG KIPs GIG KIPs
the KIP the KIP the KIP
declaration declaration declaration
table, 3) table, 3) table, 3)
NCOW RM NCOW RM NCOW RM
Enterprise Enterprise Enterprise
Services, 4) Services, 4) Services, 4)
Information Information Information
assurance assurance assurance
May 21, 2013

EA-18G Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Document 86-1 Filed 03/30/21 Page December
10 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
requirements requirements requirements

including including including
availability, availability, availability,
integrity, integrity, integrity,
authenticat- authenticat- authenticat-
ion, ion, ion,
confidential- confidential- confidential-
ity, and ity, and ity, and
nonrepudiat- nonrepudiat- nonrepudiat-
ion, and ion, and ion, and
issuance of issuance of issuance of
an ATO by an ATO by an IATO by
the DAA, the DAA, the DAA,
and 5) and 5) and 5)
Operationally Operationally Operationally
effective effective effective
information information information
exchanges; exchanges; exchanges;
and mission and mission and mission
critical critical critical
performance performance performance
and and and
information information information
assurance assurance assurance
attributes, attributes, attributes,
data data data
correctness, correctness, correctness,
data data data
availability, availability, availability,
and and and
consistent consistent consistent
data data data
processing processing processing
specified in specified in specified in
the the the
applicable applicable applicable
joint and joint and joint and
system system system
integrated integrated integrated
architecture architecture architecture
views. views. views.
Receive Azimuth Same 360 deg 360 deg 360 deg Same
Coverage
Operational Availability >=0.98 >=0.98 >=0.85 0.98 >=0.98
Carrier Suitability
Launch Catapult <=25 knots <=25 knots <=30 knots 21 knots <=25 knots
WOD (Max Gross
Weight, Tropical
Day)
Deck Spot Factor <=1.4 <=1.4 <=1.5 1.46 1.46 (Ch-1)
May 21, 2013

11 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Recovery Payload >=9,000 lbs >=9,000 lbs >=9,000 lbs 11,037 lbs >=9,000 lbs
(empty wing and
centerline pylons and
nacelle ejectors, 47,000
lbs, 14 knots WOD)
Additional Internal Fuel >=3,000 lbs >=3,000 lbs >=3,000 lbs 3,802 lbs >=3,000 lbs
Capacity (over F/A-
18C/D)
Requirements Source: Capability Production Document (CPD) Change 1 dated October 19, 2009
Acronyms And Abbreviations

ATO - Approval to Operate
DAA - Designated Approval Authority
deg - Degrees
DISR - DOD Information Technology Standards and Profile Registry
GIG IT - Global Information Grid Information Technology
IATO - Interim Authority to Operate
KIP - Key Interface Profile
lbs - Pounds
NCOW RM - Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model
TV - Technical View
WOD - Wind Over Deck
Change Explanations
(Ch-1) The current estimate for Deck Spot Factor was updated from <=1.4 to 1.46 to be consistent with the F/A-
18E/F aircraft.
Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission.
May 21, 2013

12 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Track To Budget
RDT&E
APPN 1319 BA 05 PE 0604269N (Navy)
Project 3063 EA-18G Development
Procurement
APPN 1506 BA 01 PE 0204154N (Navy)
ICN 0143 APN-1 EA-18G
APPN 1506 BA 06 PE 0204154N (Navy)
ICN 0605 APN-6 EA-18G Spares (Shared) (Sunk)

MILCON
APPN 1205 BA 01 PE 0703676N (Navy)
Project P193 EA-18G Facility Improvements (Sunk)
May 21, 2013

13 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Cost and Funding
Cost Summary
Total Acquisition Cost and Quantity
BY2004 $M BY2004 $M TY $M
Current APB Current APB
SAR Baseline Current SAR Baseline Current
Appropriation Production Production
Prod Est Estimate Prod Est Estimate
Objective/Threshold Objective
RDT&E 1755.3 1700.8 1870.9 1702.8 1899.9 1832.3 1864.3
1
Procurement 5754.6 8329.7 9162.7 9380.3 6712.5 9693.8 11195.9
Flyaway 5117.5 -- -- 8158.3 5968.5 -- 9719.5
Recurring 5089.0 -- -- 7997.1 5936.2 -- 9531.2
Non Recurring 28.5 -- -- 161.2 32.3 -- 188.3
Support 637.1 -- -- 1222.0 744.0 -- 1476.4
Other Support 452.7 -- -- 989.0 533.1 -- 1207.5
Initial Spares 184.4 -- -- 233.0 210.9 -- 268.9
MILCON 20.9 21.4 23.5 21.4 24.0 24.0 24.0
Acq O&M 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 7530.8 10051.9 N/A 11104.5 8636.4 11550.1 13084.2
1
APB Breach
Confidence Level for Current APB Cost 50% - The current estimate recommendation aims to provide sufficient
resources to execute the program under normal conditions, encountering average levels of technical, schedule
and programmatic risk, and external interference. It is consistent with average resource expenditures on
historical efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity.
SAR Baseline Current APB

Quantity Current Estimate
Prod Est Production
RDT&E 0 0 0
Procurement 84 114 135
Total 84 114 135
The procurement profile of the FY 2014 President's Budget added 21 EA-18G aircraft in FY 2014. This
increased the total program of record from 114 to 135.
May 21, 2013

14 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Cost and Funding
Funding Summary
Appropriation and Quantity Summary

FY2014 President's Budget / December 2012 SAR (TY$ M)
To
Appropriation Prior FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Total
Complete
RDT&E 1773.7 13.0 11.1 19.6 16.4 16.4 14.1 0.0 1864.3
Procurement 8086.9 1061.6 2001.8 45.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11195.9
MILCON 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0
Acq O&M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PB 2014 Total 9884.6 1074.6 2012.9 65.2 16.4 16.4 14.1 0.0 13084.2
PB 2013 Total 9891.9 1074.6 37.3 24.1 16.1 16.3 0.0 0.0 11060.3
Delta -7.3 0.0 1975.6 41.1 0.3 0.1 14.1 0.0 2023.9
Program funding and production quantities listed in this SAR are consistent with the FY 2014 President's
Budget (PB). The FY 2014 PB did not reflect the enacted DoD appropriation for FY 2013, nor sequestration; it
reflected the President's requested amounts for FY 2013.
To
Quantity Undistributed Prior FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Total
Complete
Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production 0 102 12 21 0 0 0 0 0 135
PB 2014 Total 0 102 12 21 0 0 0 0 0 135
PB 2013 Total 0 102 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 114
Delta 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 21
May 21, 2013

15 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Cost and Funding
Annual Funding By Appropriation
Annual Funding TY$

1319 | RDT&E | Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Non End
End Item Non
Item Total Total Total
Fiscal Recurring Recurring
Quantity Recurring Flyaway Support Program
Year Flyaway Flyaway
Flyaway TY $M TY $M TY $M
TY $M TY $M
TY $M
2004 -- -- -- -- -- -- 203.7
2005 -- -- -- -- -- -- 353.7
2006 -- -- -- -- -- -- 379.7
2007 -- -- -- -- -- -- 361.0
2008 -- -- -- -- -- -- 269.4
2009 -- -- -- -- -- -- 115.7
2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- 55.5
2011 -- -- -- -- -- -- 20.2
2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.8
2013 -- -- -- -- -- -- 13.0
2014 -- -- -- -- -- -- 11.1
2015 -- -- -- -- -- -- 19.6
2016 -- -- -- -- -- -- 16.4
2017 -- -- -- -- -- -- 16.4
2018 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.1
Subtotal -- -- -- -- -- -- 1864.3
May 21, 2013

16 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Annual Funding BY$

Non End
End Item Non
Flyaway BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
BY 2004 $M
2004 -- -- -- -- -- -- 199.6
2005 -- -- -- -- -- -- 337.8
2006 -- -- -- -- -- -- 351.6
2007 -- -- -- -- -- -- 326.3
2008 -- -- -- -- -- -- 239.2
2009 -- -- -- -- -- -- 101.4
2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- 47.9
2011 -- -- -- -- -- -- 17.0
2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.2
2013 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10.5
2014 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.8
2015 -- -- -- -- -- -- 15.3
2016 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.5
2017 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.3
2018 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10.4
Subtotal -- -- -- -- -- -- 1702.8
May 21, 2013

17 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Annual Funding TY$

1506 | Procurement | Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Non End
End Item Non
Flyaway TY $M TY $M TY $M
TY $M TY $M
TY $M
2005 -- 8.2 -- -- 8.2 -- 8.2
2006 4 308.0 -- 7.5 315.5 55.7 371.2
2007 9 638.7 -- 5.8 644.5 104.9 749.4
2008 21 1396.4 -- 63.4 1459.8 164.9 1624.7
2009 22 1563.3 -- 17.1 1580.4 157.3 1737.7
2010 22 1411.8 -- 69.0 1480.8 87.8 1568.6
2011 12 878.2 -- -- 878.2 131.1 1009.3
2012 12 816.7 -- 0.3 817.0 200.8 1017.8
2013 12 821.6 -- 22.1 843.7 217.9 1061.6
2014 21 1688.3 -- 3.1 1691.4 310.4 2001.8
2015 -- -- -- -- -- 45.6 45.6
Subtotal 135 9531.2 -- 188.3 9719.5 1476.4 11195.9
May 21, 2013

18 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Annual Funding BY$

Non End
End Item Non
Flyaway BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
BY 2004 $M
2005 -- 7.7 -- -- 7.7 -- 7.7
2006 4 281.1 -- 6.8 287.9 50.9 338.8
2007 9 569.7 -- 5.2 574.9 93.5 668.4
2008 21 1226.9 -- 55.7 1282.6 144.9 1427.5
2009 22 1354.2 -- 14.8 1369.0 136.3 1505.3
2010 22 1195.7 -- 58.5 1254.2 74.3 1328.5
2011 12 726.4 -- -- 726.4 108.4 834.8
2012 12 662.6 -- 0.2 662.8 162.9 825.7
2013 12 654.0 -- 17.6 671.6 173.4 845.0
2014 21 1318.8 -- 2.4 1321.2 242.4 1563.6
2015 -- -- -- -- -- 35.0 35.0
Subtotal 135 7997.1 -- 161.2 8158.3 1222.0 9380.3
May 21, 2013

19 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Cost Quantity Information

End Item
Recurring
Flyaway
Fiscal (Aligned
Quantity
Year with
Quantity)
BY 2004
$M
2005 -- --
2006 4 265.0
2007 9 558.2
2008 21 1217.7
2009 22 1358.4
2010 22 1219.0
2011 12 707.2
2012 12 676.0
2013 12 676.8
2014 21 1318.8
2015 -- --
Subtotal 135 7997.1
May 21, 2013

20 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Annual Funding TY$

1205 | MILCON | Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
Total
Fiscal
Program
Year
TY $M
2007 24.0
Subtotal 24.0
May 21, 2013

21 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Annual Funding BY$

1205 | MILCON | Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps
Total
Fiscal
Program
Year
BY 2004 $M
2007 21.4
Subtotal 21.4
May 21, 2013

22 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Low Rate Initial Production
Initial LRIP Decision Current Total LRIP

Approval Date 12/18/2003 5/8/2008
Approved Quantity 9 30
Reference Milestone B ADM Milestone C ADM
Start Year 2006 2006
End Year 2009 2009
The Current Total LRIP Quantity is more than 10% of the total production quantity due to the determination that 30
EA-18G aircraft would be the minimum requirement to conduct LRIP, permit a systematic increase in the production
rate of the ALQ-218 system, and avoid a break in the production line.
Pursuant to criteria defined by Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2400(b), the minimum quantity
necessary for the LRIP of Weapons Systems is 10 percent of the total number of articles to be produced and a
minimum quantity of 26 EA-18G systems was needed to conduct LRIP. However, the LRIP quantity of 30 EA-
18G systems was the minimum number necessary to permit a systematic increase in production and avoid a break
in the production line. In LRIP I (FY 2007), the EA-18G program office procured nine EA-18G systems (including one
FY 2007 supplemental). For LRIP II (FY 2008), the EA-18G program office procured 21 EA-18G systems
(including three FY 2008 supplementals). In accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2400(a), the first EA-18G
program SAR reported LRIP quantities exceeding 10 percent.
May 21, 2013

23 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Foreign Military Sales
Date of Total
Country Quantity Memo
Sale Cost $M
Australia 8/30/2012 12 992.4 This case was implemented to procure 12
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) kits, spare
components, and associated support to modify
six Lot 33 aircraft from an existing Australian F/A-
18F to an Australian EA-18G.
Nuclear Cost
None
May 21, 2013

24 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Unit Cost
Unit Cost Report
BY2004 $M BY2004 $M
Current UCR
Current Estimate BY
Unit Cost Baseline
(DEC 2012 SAR) % Change
(FEB 2011 APB)
Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC)
Cost 10051.9 11104.5
Quantity 114 135
Unit Cost 88.175 82.256 -6.71
Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC)
Cost 8329.7 9380.3
Quantity 114 135
Unit Cost 73.068 69.484 -4.91
BY2004 $M BY2004 $M
Original UCR
Current Estimate BY
Unit Cost Baseline
(DEC 2012 SAR) % Change
(DEC 2003 APB)
Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC)
Cost 7662.6 11104.5
Quantity 90 135
Unit Cost 85.140 82.256 -3.39
Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC)
Cost 6030.5 9380.3
Quantity 90 135
Unit Cost 67.006 69.484 +3.70
May 21, 2013

25 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Unit Cost History
BY2004 $M TY $M
Date PAUC APUC PAUC APUC
Original APB DEC 2003 85.140 67.006 93.573 74.600
APB as of January 2006 DEC 2003 85.140 67.006 93.573 74.600
Revised Original APB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prior APB JAN 2010 90.989 71.149 103.828 82.449
Current APB FEB 2011 88.175 73.068 101.317 85.033
Prior Annual SAR DEC 2011 83.890 68.829 97.020 80.558
Current Estimate DEC 2012 82.256 69.484 96.920 82.933
SAR Unit Cost History
Initial SAR Baseline to Current SAR Baseline (TY $M)
Initial PAUC Changes PAUC

Dev Est Econ Qty Sch Eng Est Oth Spt Total Prod Est
93.573 4.150 1.442 -0.319 0.947 -0.348 0.000 3.369 9.241 102.814
Current SAR Baseline to Current Estimate (TY $M)
PAUC Changes PAUC

Prod Est Econ Qty Sch Eng Est Oth Spt Total Current Est
102.814 0.196 -10.081 -0.043 0.000 -1.345 0.000 5.379 -5.894 96.920
May 21, 2013

26 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Initial APUC Changes APUC

Dev Est Econ Qty Sch Eng Est Oth Spt Total Prod Est
74.600 3.679 0.057 -0.319 0.138 -1.613 0.000 3.369 5.311 79.911
APUC Changes APUC

Prod Est Econ Qty Sch Eng Est Oth Spt Total Current Est
79.911 0.063 -1.429 -0.043 0.000 -0.948 0.000 5.379 3.022 82.933
SAR Baseline History
SAR SAR SAR

Current
Item/Event Planning Development Production
Estimate
Estimate (PE) Estimate (DE) Estimate (PdE)
Milestone A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Milestone B N/A NOV 2003 DEC 2003 DEC 2003
Milestone C N/A APR 2007 JUL 2007 JUL 2007
IOC N/A SEP 2009 SEP 2009 SEP 2009
Total Cost (TY $M) N/A 8421.6 8636.4 13084.2
Total Quantity N/A 90 84 135
Prog. Acq. Unit Cost (PAUC) N/A 93.573 102.814 96.920
May 21, 2013

27 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Cost Variance
Summary Then Year $M

RDT&E Proc MILCON Total
SAR Baseline (Prod Est) 1899.9 6712.5 24.0 8636.4
Previous Changes
Economic +16.9 -37.2 -- -20.3
Quantity -- +2130.5 -- +2130.5
Schedule -- -2.6 -- -2.6
Engineering -- -- -- --
Estimating -64.1 -46.6 -- -110.7
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +427.0 -- +427.0
Subtotal -47.2 +2471.1 -- +2423.9
Current Changes
Economic +1.1 +45.7 -- +46.8
Quantity -- +1752.1 -- +1752.1
Schedule -- -3.2 -- -3.2
Estimating +10.5 -81.4 -- -70.9
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +299.1 -- +299.1
Subtotal +11.6 +2012.3 -- +2023.9
Total Changes -35.6 +4483.4 -- +4447.8
CE - Cost Variance 1864.3 11195.9 24.0 13084.2
CE - Cost & Funding 1864.3 11195.9 24.0 13084.2
May 21, 2013

28 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Summary Base Year 2004 $M

RDT&E Proc MILCON Total
SAR Baseline (Prod Est) 1755.3 5754.6 20.9 7530.8
Previous Changes
Economic -- -- -- --
Quantity -- +1774.7 -- +1774.7
Schedule -- -1.0 -- -1.0
Estimating -59.7 -34.9 +0.5 -94.1
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +353.1 -- +353.1
Subtotal -59.7 +2091.9 +0.5 +2032.7
Current Changes
Quantity -- +1368.6 -- +1368.6
Schedule -- -2.5 -- -2.5
Estimating +7.2 -64.1 -- -56.9
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +231.8 -- +231.8
Subtotal +7.2 +1533.8 -- +1541.0
Total Changes -52.5 +3625.7 +0.5 +3573.7
CE - Cost Variance 1702.8 9380.3 21.4 11104.5
CE - Cost & Funding 1702.8 9380.3 21.4 11104.5
Previous Estimate: December 2011
May 21, 2013

29 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
RDT&E $M
Base Then
Current Change Explanations Year Year
Revised escalation indices. (Economic) N/A +1.1
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Estimating) -0.3 -0.3
Revised estimate due to fact-of-life program adjustments and the addition of another
+7.5 +10.8
year to the Future Years Defense Program. (Estimating)
RDT&E Subtotal +7.2 +11.6
Procurement $M
Base Then
Current Change Explanations Year Year
Revised escalation indices. (Economic) N/A +45.7
Total quantity variance resulting from an increase of 21 EA-18Gs from 114 to 135.
+1188.9 +1522.0
(Subtotal)
Quantity variance resulting from an increase of 21 EA-18Gs from 114 to 135.
(+1236.3) (+1582.7)
(Quantity) (QR)
Allocation to Schedule resulting from Quantity change. (Schedule) (QR) (-2.5) (-3.2)
Allocation to Estimating resulting from Quantity change. (Estimating) (QR) (-44.9) (-57.5)
Additional quantity variance due to an increase in costs due to procurement of 21
+132.3 +169.4
additional EA-18Gs. (Quantity) (QR)
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Estimating) -30.4 -37.7
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Support) -6.5 -7.6
Increase in Other Support (e.g., Integrated Logistics Support/Reliability Demonstration,
+238.3 +306.6
Production Engineering, and Developmental Test III). (Support) (QR)
Increase in Initial Spares. (Support) 0.0 +0.1
Revised estimate to reflect actuals. (Estimating) +4.6 +5.6
Revised estimate to reflect budget controls. (Estimating) +6.6 +8.2
Procurement Subtotal +1533.8 +2012.3
(QR) Quantity Related
May 21, 2013

30 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Contracts
Appropriation: Procurement
Contract Name Airframe Multi-Year Procurement III (MYP III)
Contractor The Boeing Company
Contractor Location 6200 JS McDonnell Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63166
Contract Number, Type N00019-09-C-0019, FPIF
Award Date December 04, 2008
Definitization Date September 28, 2010
Initial Contract Price ($M) Current Contract Price ($M) Estimated Price At Completion ($M)
Target Ceiling Qty Target Ceiling Qty Contractor Program Manager
2528.7 2688.4 58 2616.0 2791.0 58 2616.0 2616.0
Cost And Schedule Variance Explanations

Cost and Schedule variance reporting is not required on this FPIF contract.
General Contract Variance Explanation

In accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Subpart 234.2, Earned Value Management
System, a waiver was obtained and approved on June 10, 2010, by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Acquisition and Logistics Management), to omit Earned Value Management requirements.
Contract Comments
The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to multiple
funded modifications and the incorporation of engineering change proposals (ECPs).
The EA-18G aircraft (Lots 34 through 37) are being procured on the MYP III contract from FY 2010 through FY 2013.
The MYP III contract values above reflect the EA-18G portion of this contract only.
The differences in the estimated price, ceiling price, and contract value is due to incorporating ECPs, correcting
values due to recent discrepancies in tracking the costs for this contract, and accounting for a decrease in the unit
price as a result of the Variation in Quantity savings from overall contract quantities which include F/A-18E/F and
EA-18G aircraft.
May 21, 2013

31 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Contract Name F414 Engine Production Lots 11-15
Contractor GE Aircraft Engines
Contractor Location 1000 Western Ave.
Lynn, MA 01910
Contract Number, Type N00019-06-C-0088, FPEPA
Award Date April 26, 2006
68.1 N/A 160 848.8 N/A 195 848.8 848.8

Cost and Schedule variance reporting is not required on this FPEPA contract.

There is no contract performance reporting required on this Fixed Price Economic Price Adjustment (FPEPA)
contract.
Contract Comments
The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to exercising
contract options, incorporation of Engine Program Descriptions (EPDs) in support of the F414 Component
Improvement Program (CIP), and procurement of long-lead material in support of the FY 2011 engines.
On September 26, 2007, this contract was definitized with a base year plus four options for the procurement of up to
160 engines. The quantity of 160 engines was based upon the base contact (16) and all option year (144) engines
to be procured. The current quantity of 195 represents the total EA-18G engine quantity procured to date. This
quantity is based upon the base contract (16), FY 2007 supplemental (2), spare engines (8), option year one FY
2008 (36), FY 2008 supplemental (6), option year two FY 2009 (44) engines and devices, Naval Supply Systems
Command Weapon Systems Support spare engines (8), option year three FY 2010 (44) engines and devices,
spare engines (7), and FY 2011 (24) engines.
This contract is more than 90% complete; therefore, this is the final report for this contract.
May 21, 2013

32 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Contract Name F414 Engine Production Lots 16-17
Contractor GE Aircraft Engines
Contractor Location 1000 Western Ave.
Lynn, MA 01910
Contract Number, Type N00019-11-C-0045, FFP
Award Date April 26, 2006
5.2 N/A 0 174.6 N/A 42 174.6 174.6

Cost and Schedule variance reporting is not required on this FFP contract.
Contract Comments
This is the first time this contract is being reported.
The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to the FY 2012
procurement of 24 engines and devices, FY 2013 procurement of long lead material, and FY 2013 procurement of
18 engines and devices.
The original contract value only reflects the procurement of time critical long lead material in support of the FY 2012
F414 engine production.
May 21, 2013

33 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Contract Name EA-18G Full Rate Production (FRP) Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Kits
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516
Contract Number, Type N00019-09-C-0086, FFP
Definitization Date May 11, 2009
50.3 N/A N/A 993.8 N/A 68 993.8 993.8

Cost and Schedule variance reporting is not required on this FFP contract.
Contract Comments
The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to adding Lots
33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) AEA kits after program approval into FRP, dated
November 23, 2009.
The original contract value reflected the advanced procurement of Time Critical Parts (TCP) only.
AEA Kit deliveries on this contract have begun and are ahead of schedule.
May 21, 2013

34 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Contract Name System Configuration Sets (SCS) Contract
St. Louis, MO 63166
Contract Number, Type N68936-09-D-0002, IDIQ/CPIF/CPFF
Definitization Date December 19, 2008
905.3 N/A 80 899.9 N/A 67 899.9 899.9

Cost and Schedule variance reporting is not required on this IDIQ/CPIF/CPFF contract.

In accordance with a contract addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.234-4, Earned Value
Management (EVM) will be implemented on individual orders. As stated in the contract, EVM is not applicable at the
basic contract level.
Contract Comments
The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to a contract
modification realigning certain efforts from a Cost Plus Incentive Fee Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to a Cost
Plus Fixed Fee Level of Effort CLIN.
The initial contract price target for the basic contract reflects the total negotiated value at contract award. The current
contract price target for the basic contract reflects the revised contract value.
The value, quantities, and funding for each delivery or task order, issued under this Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-
Quantity contract, are individually negotiated.
This contract includes shared costs and quantities for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G platforms; therefore, all data is
duplicated in the F/A-18E/F SAR.
May 21, 2013

35 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Deliveries and Expenditures
Percent
Deliveries To Date Plan To Date Actual To Date Total Quantity
Delivered
Development 0 0 0 --
Production 85 85 135 62.96%
Total Program Quantities Delivered 85 85 135 62.96%
Expenditures and Appropriations (TY $M)

Total Acquisition Cost 13084.2 Years Appropriated 10
Expenditures To Date 7949.5 Percent Years Appropriated 66.67%
Percent Expended 60.76% Appropriated to Date 10959.2
Total Funding Years 15 Percent Appropriated 83.76%
The above data is current as of 3/26/2013.
May 21, 2013

36 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Operating and Support Cost
EA-18G
Assumptions and Ground Rules
Cost Estimate Reference:
Current Program: EA-18G
Flight Hours per Aircraft per Month: 34.2
Number of Five Primary Authorized Aircraft (PAA) Squadrons: 16
Number of Aircraft Operating Years: 2,090
Consumption Rate, Gallons per Hour: 1,304
Petroleum, Oil, Lubrication (POL) Cost, JP-5 per Gallon (FY 2004$): $1.08
Operational Service Life (Flight Hours): 7,500
Fleet Readiness Squadron (FRS) at 20 PAA: 1
Total Life Cycle Flight Hours: 858,787
Date of Estimate: February 2013
Source: AIR-4.2 Operating & Support (O&S) Cost Estimate
Sustainment Strategy:
The EA-18G support strategy is based on the following assumptions for basing and utilization. Aircraft to include the
Fleet Replacement Squadron (20 Aircraft) and 15 fleet squadrons (5 PAA) will be based at Naval Air Station (NAS)
Whidbey Island, WA. Ten of these squadrons will be primarily assigned in the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) role, while
the other five will be assigned in the expeditionary role. All squadrons will be manned to the level required to
execute the expeditionary mission. One fleet squadron is forward deployed to Atsugi, Japan. EA-18G and F/A-
18E/F common maintenance training will be conducted at NAS Lemoore, CA with peculiar EA-18G Airborne
Electronic Attack (AEA) maintenance training being conducted at NAS Whidbey Island, WA. EA-18G and F/A-
18E/F common intermediate level (I-Level) maintenance will be conducted at NAS Lemoore, CA to include the
F414 engine. Limited I-level for some EA-18G and F/A-18E/F common maintenance tasks has been established at
NAS Whidbey Island, WA. AEA I-Level maintenance will be stood up at NAS Whidbey Island, WA and aboard the
CVWs commencing FY 2017. EA-18G depot level (D-Level) maintenance will follow the directives as published in
the Integrated Logistics Support, Supply Chain Management, and F414 Engines Support contracts. This support
strategy focuses on the integration of existing F/A-18F support, support that was developed for the EA-6B
equipment common to the EA-18G, and development of support for EA-18G unique design circumstances. While
the EA-18G AEA equipment is based on the Improved Capabilities III system that was developed for the EA-6B,
much of it is repackaged - some with added EA-18G unique components and some newly designed EA-18G
equipment.
-- Quantity: Total Aircraft Authorization of 135

-- Service Life: 20 Years
Antecedent Information:
Antecedent Program: EA-6B
Consumption Rate, Gallons per Hour: 1,201
Number of Aircraft Operating Years: 2,090 (Not actual, but used to provide a comparison between the EA-18G and
its antecedent platform)
Flight Hours per Aircraft per Month: 32.4
POL, JP-5 per Gallon (FY 2004$): $1.08
The variable components of the cost estimate, such as the Flying Hour Program (FHP), are based on the number of
May 21, 2013

37 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
aircraft operational years available and the flight hours generated. Some elements, such as personnel and their
associated indirect and training costs, are dependent on the number of squadrons and the manning
requirements of each squadron. Other elements that are fixed in nature, such as sustaining engineering, are based
on a cost per aircraft. Modifications and depot maintenance for airframes and support equipment are estimated as
the total requirement and then applied on a cost per aircraft basis.
O&S Cost Variance Explanation

Variance Category Causal Factor Impact
Cost Estimating Methodologies N/A N/A
Cost Data Updates N/A N/A
Rates Incorporated Updated Base Installation Support Rates 1.9%
Technical Inputs Added APN-5 in FY 2018 to Procure the Multi-Functional 3.3%
Information Distribution System (MIDS) Joint Tactical
Radio System (JTRS)
Increased Post-Production Program-Related Engineering 0.3%
Requirement
Programmatics/Planning Factors Added 21 Aircraft to Program of Record (PoR) 6.7%
Increased PAA by 13 - Three Additional FRS Aircraft and
Two Additional Five Aircraft Expeditionary Squadrons (FHP)
Added Personnel to Support PAA Increases and Increased 4.3%
CVW Squadron Manning 90% to 95% to Enable Use in the
Expeditionary Role
Added Two Expeditionary Logistics Units (ELU) Manning from 0.4%
17 to 21 per Detachment
Estimated Technical and Programmatic Updates

- 21 Aircraft Added to PoR
- Number of Five PAA Squadrons Increased from 14 to 16
- FRS PAA Increased from 17 to 20
- Manpower Increased Due to the Following:
~ Two Additional Expeditionary Squadrons
~ CVW Manning Increased from 90% to 95% to Enable Execution of the Expeditionary Mission
- ELU Detachment Increased from 17 to 21 (2:1 Dwell Time)
- Total Life Cycle Flight Hours Increased 15.8% Primarily Due to PAA Increases
- Number of Aircraft Operating Years Increased 13%
May 21, 2013

38 of 38 31, 2012 SAR
Unitized O&S Costs BY2004 $K

"Antecedent" EA-6B
EA-18G
(Antecedent)
Cost Element Average Annual Cost Per
Average Annual Cost Per
Aircraft
Aircraft
Unit-Level Manpower 2.435 2.228
Unit Operations 0.780 0.550
Maintenance 2.935 3.313
Sustaining Support 0.183 0.363
Continuing System Improvements 0.941 1.603
Indirect Support 0.518 0.448
Other 0.000 0.000
Total 7.792 8.505
Unitized Cost Comments:

The Average Annual Cost per Aircraft for the EA-18G is calculated by dividing the total O&S Cost by the Total
Operational Aircraft Years for the program.
Total O&S Cost $M

Current Production APB Current Estimate
Objective/Threshold
EA-18G EA-18G "Antecedent" EA-6B
(Antecedent)
Base Year 14743.0 16217.3 16284.0 1 17797.0
Then Year 24508.2 N/A 26319.0 N/A
1
APB O&S Cost Breach
Total O&S Costs Comments:

For comparison purposes, the Base Year Antecedent's Average Annual Cost per Aircraft is derived from total FY
2008-2012 cost from the Navy Visibility and Management of Operation and Support Costs (VAMOSC) Aircraft Type
Model Series Report (ATMSR), divided by the total number of aircraft in ATMSR for FY 2008-2012. The value is
then multiplied by the total number of aircraft operating years associated with EA-18G to provide a point of
comparison.
The procurement profile of PB 2014 added 21 EA-18G aircraft in FY 2014. This increased the total PoR from 114 to
135. The increase in aircraft and related support caused an O&S cost breach. A Program Deviation Report is
being developed.
Disposal Costs
While these costs are not part of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 2007 O&S Cost Element Structure
and hence are not included in the totals above, the Life Cycle Cost impact has been estimated at $24.9M ($18.5M
in BY 2004$).
May 21, 2013

EXHIBIT B
12/16/2019 Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC
Gmail - FOIA REQUESTDocument 86-2
#FY17-04 FROM Filed 03/30/21
DR. GREACEN Page 2 of 3
(DON-NAVY-2017-001735)
Chris Greacen <chrisgreacen@gmail.com>
FOIA REQUEST #FY17-04 FROM DR. GREACEN (DON-NAVY-2017-001735)

1 message
Owens-Worley, Maureen A CIV NAVSUP FLC Puget Sound <maureen.owens- Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:46
worley@navy.mil> PM
To: "chrisgreacen@gmail.com" <chrisgreacen@gmail.com>
5720
FOIA FY17-04
March 24, 2017
Dr. Christopher E. Greacen

44 Tuatara
Lopez Island, WA 98261
SUBJECT: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST #FY17-04 FOR EA-18G FUEL INFORMATION
Dear Dr. Greacen:
This responds to your FOIA request of December 7, 2016 in which you requested information on cumulative jet fuel
consumption for 2015 (or most recent complete year) for EA-18G Growler aircraft that took off from Whidbey Island Naval
Air Station. Your request was initially assigned to Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet and forwarded to my
command on March 7, 2017. Your request has been assigned #FY17-04.
Your request has not been properly perfected. The request must be properly made pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). In order to perfect a proper request you need the following:
1. You must mention the Freedom of Information Act;

2. You must ask for a specific document or record;
3. You must state your willingness to pay all fees or those fees up to a specified amount; and
4. Provide contact information to include mailing address, telephone numbers, and email addresses.
Your request asked for "information" vice a document or record. We are not required to create a document for information
sought. I searched for a document or record with the specificities you requested and no such record exists. In an effort to
assist you, I requested the data from a database and just yesterday received below email with the "information" you
seek. You requested the most recent complete year. The Navy generally operates on a fiscal year (FY) basis which is
from October 1 through September 30 of the following year. The response below is for FY16 which covers October 1,
2015 through September 30, 2016. I was unable to separate out from training from operational flights.
As part of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, you now have the right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public
Liaison of the agency, which for the Navy is Christopher Julka, (703) 697-0031.
As a private requester, you are entitled to the first two hours of search time and 100 pages at no cost. I am
forwarding one electronic document which cannot be charged as copying. The fees in this case a nominal and as such,
the fees are waived.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 476-2939.
Sincerely,
/s/
M. A. OWENS-WORLEY
Paralegal
Copy to:
COMVAQWINGPAC
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d3e6024ab&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1562796849237644987&simpl=msg-f%3A1562796… 1/2
12/16/2019 Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC
Gmail - FOIA REQUESTDocument 86-2
#FY17-04 FROM Filed 03/30/21
DR. GREACEN Page 3 of 3
(DON-NAVY-2017-001735)
----Original Message-----
From: Ordonio, John D CIV FLC Puget Sound, C/402
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:30 PM
To: Owens-Worley, Maureen A CIV NAVSUP FLC Puget Sound
Subject: FUEL FOIA REQUEST
Mo,
In FY2016 all EA18G Growlers for NAS Whidbey Island were issued 20,253,643 gallons of Jet fuel.
Hope this helps
V/r
John Ordonio|Fuels Management Officer|COR
NAVUSP | Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound |
Naval Air Station | Whidbey Island DET
☎Office: 360-257-3101 | ☎Cell: 360-509-8285|
john.ordonio@navy.mil
The information or documents contained in this e-mail are FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PRIVACY SENSITIVE - Any
misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties.
smime.p7s
6K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d3e6024ab&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1562796849237644987&simpl=msg-f%3A1562796… 2/2
EXHIBIT C
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
RCS: DD-A&T(Q&A)823-378

As of FY 2017 President's Budget
Defense Acquisition Management

Information Retrieval
(DAMIR)
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED
12:07:44
EA-18G December 2015 SAR
Table of Contents
Common Acronyms and Abbreviations for MDAP Programs 3

Program Information 5
Responsible Office 5
References 5
Mission and Description 6
Executive Summary 7
Threshold Breaches 8
Schedule 9
Performance 10
Track to Budget 12
Cost and Funding 13
Low Rate Initial Production 22
Foreign Military Sales 23
Nuclear Costs 23
Unit Cost 24
Cost Variance 27
Contracts 30
Deliveries and Expenditures 36
Operating and Support Cost 37
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 2
12:07:44
Common Acronyms and Abbreviations for MDAP Programs
Acq O&M - Acquisition-Related Operations and Maintenance

ACAT - Acquisition Category
ADM - Acquisition Decision Memorandum
APB - Acquisition Program Baseline
APPN - Appropriation
APUC - Average Procurement Unit Cost
$B - Billions of Dollars
BA - Budget Authority/Budget Activity
Blk - Block
BY - Base Year
CAPE - Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
CARD - Cost Analysis Requirements Description
CDD - Capability Development Document
CLIN - Contract Line Item Number
CPD - Capability Production Document
CY - Calendar Year
DAB - Defense Acquisition Board
DAE - Defense Acquisition Executive
DAMIR - Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval
DoD - Department of Defense
DSN - Defense Switched Network
EMD - Engineering and Manufacturing Development
EVM - Earned Value Management
FOC - Full Operational Capability
FMS - Foreign Military Sales
FRP - Full Rate Production
FY - Fiscal Year
FYDP - Future Years Defense Program
ICE - Independent Cost Estimate
IOC - Initial Operational Capability
Inc - Increment
JROC - Joint Requirements Oversight Council
$K - Thousands of Dollars
KPP - Key Performance Parameter
LRIP - Low Rate Initial Production
$M - Millions of Dollars
MDA - Milestone Decision Authority
MDAP - Major Defense Acquisition Program
MILCON - Military Construction
N/A - Not Applicable
O&M - Operations and Maintenance
ORD - Operational Requirements Document
OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
O&S - Operating and Support
PAUC - Program Acquisition Unit Cost
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 3
12:07:44
PB - President’s Budget
PE - Program Element
PEO - Program Executive Officer
PM - Program Manager
POE - Program Office Estimate
RDT&E - Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
SAR - Selected Acquisition Report
SCP - Service Cost Position
TBD - To Be Determined
TY - Then Year
UCR - Unit Cost Reporting
U.S. - United States
USD(AT&L) - Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 4
12:07:44
Program Information
Program Name
DoD Component
Navy
Responsible Office
CAPT David Kindley, USN Phone: 301-757-7669

Program Executive Officer (PMA265) Fax: 301-757-7520
Bldg 2272, Suite 445, NAVAIRSYSCOMHQ
47123 Buse Road, Unit IPT DSN Phone: 757-7669
Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547 DSN Fax: 757-7520
Date Assigned: July 16, 2015
david.kindley@navy.mil
References
SAR Baseline (Production Estimate)

Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) Approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) dated July 18, 2007
Approved APB
Navy Acquisition Executive (NAE) Approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) dated February 15, 2011
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 5
12:07:44
Mission and Description
The EA-18G Growler Aircraft (EA-18G) is the fourth major variant of the F/A-18 family of aircraft. The EA-18G serves as the
Navy's replacement for the EA-6B providing a capability to detect, identify, locate, and suppress hostile emitters. The EA-
18G provides organic accurate emitter targeting for employment of onboard suppression weapons such as High-Speed Anti
-Radiation Missile. The EA-18G aircraft is a missionized F/A-18F airframe coupled with the integration of its primary
Airborne Electronic Attack systems that include the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods, AN/ALQ-218 Receiver,
Communication Countermeasures Set with functionality equivalent to the USQ-113, and the Multi-Mission Advanced
Tactical Terminal.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 6
12:07:44
Executive Summary
The procurement profile of the FY 2017 PB adds 7 EA-18G aircraft in FY 2016. The result of this addition will be a FY 2016
FRP contract for Lot 40 EA-18G aircraft, which increases the total Program of Record (PoR) from 150 to 157. As part of the
A-12 settlement, the EA-18G Program received three EA-18G airframes, Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE), and
Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) kits from the Boeing Company. The value to the program was $198M. These aircraft are in
the process of delivery and are annotated as Lot 37A aircraft. There was not a Total Obligation Authority (TOA) increase to
the program. The three Growler aircraft have been added to FY 2013 and will be included in the PoR. FY 2016 $198 Million A
-12 In-kind Settlement does not reflect TOA. No additional resources were provided in FY 2016 to the Department of the
Navy.
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN (RD&A)) acknowledged and concurred
with the FY 2015 Program Deviation Report (PDR) on June 2, 2015. ASN(RD&A) approved the APB on October 15, 2015.
The additional 7 EA-18G aircraft and related support in FY 2016 caused Procurement and O&S cost breaches. Additionally,
an RDT&E breach occurred as a result of increased funding for Complex Emitter, Tactical Targeting Network Technology,
and Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked efforts. As a result, a PDR and updated APB will be submitted.
A contract modification to the Lot 38 FRP contract for the Lot 39 FRP procurement awarded on October 26, 2015.
As of November 30, 2015, EA-18G aircraft have flown 141,141 hours.
As of January 31, 2016, the program has delivered 114 aircraft to the Fleet.
There are no significant software-related issues with this program at this time.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 7
12:07:44
Threshold Breaches
APB Breaches Explanation of Breach

Schedule
As a result of the changes in the FY 2017 PB, the EA-18G program
Performance APB thresholds for RDT&E, Procurement, and O&S cost
Cost RDT&E are breached.
Procurement
MILCON The RDT&E cost breach is the result of increased funding for
Acq O&M Complex Emitter, Tactical Targeting Network Technology, and
Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked efforts.
O&S Cost
Unit Cost PAUC The Procurement cost breach is the result of 7 aircraft being added to
APUC the Program of Record (PoR) in FY 2016.
Nunn-McCurdy Breaches The O&S cost breach is the result of updated methodology being
used to estimate flight hours to more closely align flight hour
Current UCR Baseline projections with those in the Naval Synchronization Tool (NST). The
PAUC None updated methodology calculates aircraft operating years based on EA
APUC None -18G Total Aircraft Inventory (TAI) that includes pipeline aircraft to
Original UCR Baseline align with NST. Previous methodology utilized Primary Aircraft
PAUC None Authorized (PAA) that does not include pipeline aircraft. Also
contributing to the O&S cost breach are 7 aircraft being added to
APUC None
the POR in FY 2016 (Lot 40).
A Program Deviation Report and an APB will be prepared for

submission to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research,
Development, and Acquisition for review and approval.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 8
12:07:44
Schedule
Schedule Events
Current
Events Production Production
Estimate
Estimate Objective/Threshold
Milestone B Dec 2003 Nov 2003 Apr 2004 Dec 2003
Critical Design Review (CDR) Apr 2005 Apr 2005 Oct 2005 Apr 2005
Milestone C Jul 2007 Apr 2007 Oct 2007 Jul 2007
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E)(Start) Sep 2008 Sep 2008 Mar 2009 Sep 2008
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Sep 2009 Sep 2009 Mar 2010 Sep 2009
Full Rate Production (FRP) Apr 2009 Apr 2009 Nov 2009 Nov 2009
Change Explanations
None
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 9
12:07:44
Performance
Performance Characteristics
Demonstrated Current
Production Production
Performance Estimate
Estimate Objective/Threshold
Net-ready
EA-18G must fully support EA-18G must fully support EA-18G must fully support Meets all Net- Meets all
execution of joint critical execution of joint critical execution of joint critical Centric Require Net-
operational activities operational activities operational activities - ments Centric
identified in the applicable identified in the applicable identified in the applicable Require-
joint and system integrated joint and system integrated joint and system integrated ments
architectures and the architectures and the architectures and the
system must satisfy the system must satisfy the system must satisfy the
technical requirements for technical requirements for technical requirements for
transition to Net-Centric transition to Net-Centric transition to Net-Centric
military operations to military operations to military operations to
include: 1) DISR mandated include: 1) DISR mandated include: 1) DISR mandated
GIG IT standards and GIG IT standards and GIG IT standards and
profiles identified in the TV- profiles identified in the TV- profiles identified in the TV-
1, 2) DISR mandated GIG 1, 2) DISR mandated GIG 1, 2) DISR mandated GIG
KIPs identified in the KIP KIPs identified in the KIP KIPs identified in the KIP
declaration table, 3) NCOW declaration table, 3) NCOW declaration table, 3) NCOW
RM Enterprise Services, 4) RM Enterprise Services, 4) RM Enterprise Services, 4)
Information assurance Information assurance Information assurance
requirements including requirements including requirements including
availability, integrity, availability, integrity, availability, integrity,
authenticat-ion, confidential- authenticat-ion, confidential- authenticat-ion, confidential-
ity, and nonrepudiat-ion, and ity, and nonrepudiat-ion, and ity, and nonrepudiat-ion, and
issuance of an ATO by the issuance of an ATO by the issuance of an IATO by the
DAA, and 5) Operationally DAA, and 5) Operationally DAA, and 5) Operationally
effective information effective information effective information
exchanges; and mission exchanges; and mission exchanges; and mission
critical performance and critical performance and critical performance and
information assurance information assurance information assurance
attributes, data correctness, attributes, data correctness, attributes, data correctness,
data availability, and data availability, and data availability, and
consistent data processing consistent data processing consistent data processing
specified in the applicable specified in the applicable specified in the applicable
joint and system integrated joint and system integrated joint and system integrated
architecture views. architecture views. architecture views.
Receive Azimuth Coverage
360 deg 360 deg 360 deg 360 deg 360 deg
Operational Availability
>=0.98 >=0.98 >=0.85 0.98 >=0.98
Carrier Suitability
Launch Catapult WOD (Max Gross Weight, Tropical Day)
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 10
12:07:44
<=25 knots <=25 knots <=30 knots 21 knots <=25

knots
Deck Spot Factor
<=1.4 <=1.4 <=1.5 1.46 1.46
Recovery Payload (empty wing and centerline pylons and nacelle ejectors, 47,000 lbs, 14 knots WOD)
>=9,000 lbs >=9,000 lbs >=9,000 lbs 11,037 lbs >=9,000
lbs
Additional Internal Fuel Capacity (over F/A-18C/D)
>=3,000 lbs >=3,000 lbs >=3,000 lbs 3,802 lbs >=3,000
lbs
Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission.
Requirements Reference
CPD Change 1 dated October 19, 2009
Change Explanations
None
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ATO - Authority to Operate
DAA - Designated Approval Authority
deg - Degrees
DISR - DoD Information Technology Standards and Profile Registry
GIG IT - Global Information Grid Information Technology
IATO - Interim Authority to Operate
KIP - Key Interface Profile
lbs - Pounds
NCOW RM - Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model
TV - Technical View
WOD - Wind Over Deck
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 11
12:07:44
Track to Budget
RDT&E
Appn BA PE
Navy 1319 05 0604269N
Project Name
3063 EA-18G Development
Procurement
Appn BA PE
Navy 1506 01 0204154N
Line Item Name
0143 EA-18G
Navy 1506 06 0204154N
Line Item Name
0605 Spares and Repair Parts (Shared) (Sunk)
MILCON
Appn BA PE
Navy 1205 01 0703676N
Project Name
P193 EA-18G Facility Improvements (Sunk)
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 12
12:07:44
Cost and Funding
Cost Summary
Total Acquisition Cost

BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M TY $M
Appropriation SAR Baseline Current APB SAR Baseline Current APB

Current Current
Production Production Production Production
Estimate Estimate
Estimate Objective/Threshold Estimate Objective
RDT&E 1755.3 1700.8 1870.9 2120.51 1899.9 1832.3 2419.3
Procurement 5754.6 8329.7 9162.7 11045.01 6712.5 9693.8 13229.1
Flyaway -- -- -- 9328.2 -- -- 11138.0
Recurring -- -- -- 9239.8 -- -- 11036.9
Non Recurring -- -- -- 88.4 -- -- 101.1
Support -- -- -- 1716.8 -- -- 2091.1
Other Support -- -- -- 1477.6 -- -- 1815.4
Initial Spares -- -- -- 239.2 -- -- 275.7
MILCON 20.9 21.4 23.5 21.4 24.0 24.0 24.0
Acq O&M 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 7530.8 10051.9 N/A 13186.9 8636.4 11550.1 15672.4
1
APB Breach
Confidence Level
Confidence Level of cost estimate for current APB: 50%
The current estimate recommendation aims to provide sufficient resources to execute the program under normal
conditions, encountering average levels of technical, schedule and programmatic risk, and external interference. It is
consistent with average resource expenditures on historical efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity.
Total Quantity
SAR Baseline
Current APB
Quantity Production Current Estimate
Production
Estimate
RDT&E 0 0 0
Procurement 84 114 160
Total 84 114 160
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 13
12:07:44
Cost and Funding
Funding Summary
Appropriation Summary
FY 2017 President's Budget / December 2015 SAR (TY$ M)
To
Appropriation Prior FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Total
Complete
RDT&E 1814.8 46.9 116.8 165.0 142.8 65.6 67.4 0.0 2419.3
Procurement 12371.1 858.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13229.1
MILCON 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0
Acq O&M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PB 2017 Total 14209.9 904.9 116.8 165.0 142.8 65.6 67.4 0.0 15672.4
PB 2016 Total 14089.6 56.9 47.3 104.4 56.4 40.6 0.0 0.0 14395.2
Delta 120.3 848.0 69.5 60.6 86.4 25.0 67.4 0.0 1277.2
Funding Notes
As part of the A-12 settlement, the EA-18G Program received three EA-18G airframes, Contractor Furnished Equipment
(CFE), and Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) kits from the Boeing Company. The value to the program was $198M. These
aircraft are in the process of delivery and are annotated as Lot 37A aircraft. There was not a TOA increase to the program.
The three Growler aircraft have been added to FY 2013 and will be included in the Program of Record.
FY 2016 $198 Million A-12 In-kind Settlement does not reflect Total Obligation Authority (TOA). No additional resources were
provided in FY 2016 to the Department of the Navy. The three EA-18G aircraft from the A-12 settlement and the FY 2017
PB addition of 7 EA-18G aircraft in FY 2016 increases the total PoR from 150 to 160.
Quantity Summary
FY 2017 President's Budget / December 2015 SAR (TY$ M)
FY FY FY FY FY FY To
Quantity Undistributed Prior Total
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Complete
Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production 0 153 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 160
PB 2017 Total 0 153 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 160
PB 2016 Total 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Delta 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 14
12:07:44
Cost and Funding
Annual Funding By Appropriation
Annual Funding
TY $M
Fiscal Non End

Quantity End Item Non
Year Item Total Total Total
Recurring Recurring
Recurring Flyaway Support Program
Flyaway Flyaway
Flyaway
2004 -- -- -- -- -- -- 203.7
2005 -- -- -- -- -- -- 353.7
2006 -- -- -- -- -- -- 379.7
2007 -- -- -- -- -- -- 361.0
2008 -- -- -- -- -- -- 269.4
2009 -- -- -- -- -- -- 115.7
2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- 55.5
2011 -- -- -- -- -- -- 20.2
2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.8
2013 -- -- -- -- -- -- 11.8
2014 -- -- -- -- -- -- 10.6
2015 -- -- -- -- -- -- 18.7
2016 -- -- -- -- -- -- 46.9
2017 -- -- -- -- -- -- 116.8
2018 -- -- -- -- -- -- 165.0
2019 -- -- -- -- -- -- 142.8
2020 -- -- -- -- -- -- 65.6
2021 -- -- -- -- -- -- 67.4
Subtotal -- -- -- -- -- -- 2419.3
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 15
12:07:44
Annual Funding
BY 2004 $M
Fiscal Non End

Recurring Recurring
Flyaway Flyaway
Flyaway
2004 -- -- -- -- -- -- 199.6
2005 -- -- -- -- -- -- 337.8
2006 -- -- -- -- -- -- 351.6
2007 -- -- -- -- -- -- 326.3
2008 -- -- -- -- -- -- 239.2
2009 -- -- -- -- -- -- 101.4
2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- 47.9
2011 -- -- -- -- -- -- 17.0
2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.3
2013 -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.7
2014 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.6
2015 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.9
2016 -- -- -- -- -- -- 36.9
2017 -- -- -- -- -- -- 90.2
2018 -- -- -- -- -- -- 125.1
2019 -- -- -- -- -- -- 106.1
2020 -- -- -- -- -- -- 47.8
2021 -- -- -- -- -- -- 48.1
Subtotal -- -- -- -- -- -- 2120.5
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 16
12:07:44
Annual Funding
TY $M
Fiscal Non End

Recurring Recurring
Flyaway Flyaway
Flyaway
2005 -- 8.2 -- -- 8.2 -- 8.2
2006 4 308.0 -- 7.5 315.5 55.7 371.2
2007 9 638.7 -- 5.8 644.5 104.9 749.4
2008 21 1396.4 -- 63.4 1459.8 164.9 1624.7
2009 22 1563.3 -- 17.1 1580.4 157.3 1737.7
2010 22 1482.0 -- -- 1482.0 85.6 1567.6
2011 12 819.0 -- 0.2 819.2 144.4 963.6
2012 12 799.4 -- 0.3 799.7 147.7 947.4
2013 15 816.0 -- 0.1 816.1 184.0 1000.1
2014 21 1463.9 -- 6.7 1470.6 426.7 1897.3
2015 15 1178.9 -- -- 1178.9 325.0 1503.9
2016 7 563.1 -- -- 563.1 294.9 858.0
Subtotal 160 11036.9 -- 101.1 11138.0 2091.1 13229.1
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 17
12:07:44
Annual Funding
BY 2004 $M
Fiscal Non End

Recurring Recurring
Flyaway Flyaway
Flyaway
2005 -- 7.7 -- -- 7.7 -- 7.7
2006 4 281.1 -- 6.8 287.9 50.9 338.8
2007 9 569.7 -- 5.2 574.9 93.5 668.4
2008 21 1227.0 -- 55.7 1282.7 145.0 1427.7
2009 22 1354.8 -- 14.8 1369.6 136.4 1506.0
2010 22 1258.1 -- -- 1258.1 72.6 1330.7
2011 12 681.7 -- 0.2 681.9 120.2 802.1
2012 12 656.0 -- 0.2 656.2 121.3 777.5
2013 15 662.5 -- 0.1 662.6 149.4 812.0
2014 21 1173.3 -- 5.4 1178.7 341.9 1520.6
2015 15 930.8 -- -- 930.8 256.7 1187.5
2016 7 437.1 -- -- 437.1 228.9 666.0
Subtotal 160 9239.8 -- 88.4 9328.2 1716.8 11045.0
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 18
12:07:44
Cost Quantity Information

End Item
Recurring
Fiscal Flyaway
Quantity
Year (Aligned With
Quantity)
BY 2004 $M
2005 -- --
2006 4 288.8
2007 9 569.7
2008 21 1227.0
2009 22 1354.8
2010 22 1258.1
2011 12 681.7
2012 12 656.0
2013 15 662.5
2014 21 1173.3
2015 15 930.8
2016 7 437.1
Subtotal 160 9239.8
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 19
12:07:44
Annual Funding
1205 | MILCON | Military Construction, Navy and Marine
Corps
TY $M
Fiscal
Year Total
Program
2007 24.0
Subtotal 24.0
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 20
12:07:44
Annual Funding
1205 | MILCON | Military Construction, Navy and Marine
Corps
BY 2004 $M
Fiscal
Year Total
Program
2007 21.4
Subtotal 21.4
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 21
12:07:44
Low Rate Initial Production
Item Initial LRIP Decision Current Total LRIP

Approval Date 12/18/2003 5/8/2008
Approved Quantity 9 30
Reference Milestone B ADM Milestone C ADM
Start Year 2006 2006
End Year 2009 2009
The Current Total LRIP Quantity is more than 10% of the total production quantity due to the determination that 30 EA-18G
aircraft would be the minimum requirement to conduct LRIP, permit a systematic increase in the production rate of the ALQ-
218 system, and avoid a break in the production line.
In LRIP I (FY 2007), the EA-18G program office procured nine EA-18G systems (including one FY 2007 supplemental). For
LRIP II (FY 2008), the EA-18G program office procured 21 EA-18G systems (including three FY 2008 supplementals).
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 22
12:07:44
Foreign Military Sales
Date of Total
Country Quantity Description
Sale Cost $M
Australia 9/24/2013 0 17.7 FMS Case, AT-P-GTM, provides for EA-18G
Aircrew initial training and support related to AT-P-
SCI and AT-P-LEN FMS Cases.
Australia 7/4/2013 12 1346.7 FMS Case, AT-P-SCI, provides for the procurement
of 12 EA-18G aircraft and support. The 12 aircraft
were included in the Lot 38 procurement contract,
which was awarded on June 30, 2014.
Australia 8/30/2012 12 992.4 FMS Case, AT-P-LEN, provides for the
procurement of 12 Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)
kit sets, the modification effort to convert six
Australian Lot 33 F/A-18F to AEA-18G Aircraft, and
support. Per AT-P-SCI, Australia elected to obtain
12 new build EA-18G aircraft vice converting six
Australian Lot 33 F/A-18F to EA-18G.
Notes
Nuclear Costs
None
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 23
12:07:44
Unit Cost
Unit Cost Report
BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
Item Current UCR % Change

Current Estimate
Baseline
(Dec 2015 SAR)
(Feb 2011 APB)
Program Acquisition Unit Cost
Cost 10051.9 13186.9
Quantity 114 160
Unit Cost 88.175 82.418 -6.53
Average Procurement Unit Cost
Cost 8329.7 11045.0
Quantity 114 160
Unit Cost 73.068 69.031 -5.52
BY 2004 $M BY 2004 $M
Item Original UCR % Change

Current Estimate
Baseline
(Dec 2015 SAR)
(Dec 2003 APB)
Program Acquisition Unit Cost
Cost 7662.6 13186.9
Quantity 90 160
Unit Cost 85.140 82.418 -3.20
Average Procurement Unit Cost
Cost 6030.5 11045.0
Quantity 90 160
Unit Cost 67.006 69.031 +3.02
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 24
12:07:44
Unit Cost History
BY 2004 $M TY $M
Item Date
PAUC APUC PAUC APUC
Original APB Dec 2003 85.140 67.006 93.573 74.600
APB as of January 2006 Dec 2003 85.140 67.006 93.573 74.600
Revised Original APB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Prior APB Jan 2010 90.989 71.149 103.828 82.449
Current APB Feb 2011 88.175 73.068 101.317 85.033
Prior Annual SAR Dec 2014 81.188 68.401 95.968 81.672
Current Estimate Dec 2015 82.418 69.031 97.952 82.682
SAR Unit Cost History

Initial PAUC Changes PAUC
Development Production
Estimate Econ Qty Sch Eng Est Oth Spt Total Estimate
93.573 4.150 1.442 -0.319 0.947 -0.348 0.000 3.369 9.241 102.814

PAUC Changes PAUC
Production Current
102.814 -0.522 -11.764 -0.082 1.062 -2.048 0.000 8.492 -4.862 97.952
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 25
12:07:44

Initial APUC Changes APUC
Development Production
74.600 3.679 0.057 -0.319 0.138 -1.613 0.000 3.369 5.311 79.911

APUC Changes APUC
Production Current
79.911 -0.593 -0.885 -0.082 0.000 -4.161 0.000 8.492 2.771 82.682
SAR Baseline History

SAR SAR SAR
Current
Item Planning Development Production
Estimate
Estimate Estimate Estimate
Milestone A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Milestone B N/A Nov 2003 Dec 2003 Dec 2003
Milestone C N/A Apr 2007 Jul 2007 Jul 2007
IOC N/A Sep 2009 Sep 2009 Sep 2009
Total Cost (TY $M) N/A 8421.6 8636.4 15672.4
Total Quantity N/A 90 84 160
PAUC N/A 93.573 102.814 97.952
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 26
12:07:44
Cost Variance
Summary TY $M
Item RDT&E Procurement MILCON Total
SAR Baseline (Production 1899.9 6712.5 24.0 8636.4
Estimate)
Previous Changes
Economic +13.5 -70.9 -- -57.4
Quantity -- +5180.2 -- +5180.2
Schedule -- -6.7 -- -6.7
Engineering +170.0 -- -- +170.0
Estimating +37.0 -444.0 -- -407.0
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +879.7 -- +879.7
Subtotal +220.5 +5538.3 -- +5758.8
Current Changes
Economic -2.2 -24.0 -- -26.2
Quantity -- +751.5 -- +751.5
Schedule -- -6.4 -- -6.4
Estimating +301.1 -221.8 -- +79.3
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +479.0 -- +479.0
Subtotal +298.9 +978.3 -- +1277.2
Total Changes +519.4 +6516.6 -- +7036.0
CE - Cost Variance 2419.3 13229.1 24.0 15672.4
CE - Cost & Funding 2419.3 13229.1 24.0 15672.4
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 27
12:07:44
Summary BY 2004 $M
Item RDT&E Procurement MILCON Total
SAR Baseline (Production 1755.3 5754.6 20.9 7530.8
Estimate)
Previous Changes
Quantity -- +4159.9 -- +4159.9
Schedule -- -4.2 -- -4.2
Engineering +126.1 -- -- +126.1
Estimating +15.2 -354.8 +0.5 -339.1
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +704.7 -- +704.7
Subtotal +141.3 +4505.6 +0.5 +4647.4
Current Changes
Quantity -- +586.3 -- +586.3
Schedule -- -0.4 -- -0.4
Estimating +223.9 -176.1 -- +47.8
Other -- -- -- --
Support -- +375.0 -- +375.0
Subtotal +223.9 +784.8 -- +1008.7
Total Changes +365.2 +5290.4 +0.5 +5656.1
CE - Cost Variance 2120.5 11045.0 21.4 13186.9
CE - Cost & Funding 2120.5 11045.0 21.4 13186.9
Previous Estimate: December 2014
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 28
12:07:44
RDT&E $M
Base Then
Current Change Explanations
Year Year
Revised escalation indices. (Economic) N/A -2.2
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Estimating) +0.4 +0.5
Revised estimate for Tactical Targeting Network Technology in FY 2017 to FY 2019. +38.5 +50.9
(Estimating)
Revised estimate for Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked in FY 2017 to FY 2021. +38.1 +52.4
(Estimating)
Revised estimate for Complex Emitter in FY 2017 to FY 2020. (Estimating) +154.8 +207.3
Decrease in FY 2016 funding due to Congressional reduction. (Estimating) -7.9 -10.0
RDT&E Subtotal +223.9 +298.9
Procurement $M
Base Then
Current Change Explanations
Year Year
Revised escalation indices. (Economic) N/A -24.0
Quantity variance resulting from an increase of 7 aircraft from 153 to 160. (Subtotal) +562.2 +720.7
Quantity variance resulting from an increase of 7 aircraft from 153 to 160. (Quantity) (+586.3) (+751.5)
Allocation to Schedule resulting from Quantity change. (Schedule) (QR) (-0.4) (-0.5)
Allocation to Estimating resulting from Quantity change. (Estimating) (QR) (-23.7) (-30.3)
Acceleration of procurement buy profile. (Schedule) (QR) 0.0 -5.9
Decrease in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015 due to internal Navy realignments. -168.5 -211.4
(Estimating)
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Estimating) +16.1 +19.9
Adjustment for current and prior escalation. (Support) +3.2 +4.1
Increase in Other Support resulting from increase in 7 additional aircraft. (Support) (QR) +371.5 +474.5
Increase in Initial Spares resulting from increase in 7 additional aircraft. (Support) (QR) +0.3 +0.4
Procurement Subtotal +784.8 +978.3
(QR) Quantity Related
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 29
12:07:44
Contracts
Contract Identification
Contract Name: Airframe Multi-Year Procurement III (MYP III)
Contractor: The Boeing Company
Contractor Location: 6200 JS McDonnell Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63166
Contract Number: N00019-09-C-0019
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP)
Award Date: December 04, 2008
Definitization Date: September 28, 2010
Contract Price
2528.7 N/A 58 2644.3 N/A 58 2644.3 2644.3
Target Price Change Explanation

The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to multiple funded
modifications and the incorporation of Engineering Change Proposals.
Cost and Schedule Variance Explanations

Cost and Schedule Variance reporting is not required on this (FFP) contract.
Notes
The EA-18G aircraft (Lots 34 through 37) are being procured on the MYP III contract from FY 2010 through FY 2013. The
MYP III contract values above reflect the EA-18G portion of this contract only.
The MYPIII contract was awarded on December 4, 2008, for the advance procurement of long-lead materials. A contract
modification, P00009, funded the contract for the procurement of Lot 34 aircraft and associated requirements.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 30
12:07:44
Contract Name: F414 Engine Production Lots 16-19
Contractor: GE Aircraft Engines
Contractor Location: 1000 Western Ave.
Lynn, MA 01910
Award Date: April 20, 2011
Contract Price
5.2 N/A 0 507.9 N/A 114 507.9 507.9

The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to the FY 2012
procurement of 24 engines and devices, FY 2013 procurement of long lead material, FY 2013 procurement of 18 engines
and devices, modifications executed for advanced procurement for FY 2014 engines, modification executed for the FY 2014
procurement of 42 engines and devices, and the modification executed for the FY 2015 procurement of 30 engines and
devices.

Notes
The original contract value only reflects the procurement of time-critical long-lead material in support of the FY 2012 F414
engine production.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 31
12:07:44
Contract Name: EA-18G FRP AEA Kits
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516
Definitization Date: May 11, 2009
Contract Price
50.3 N/A N/A 993.8 N/A 92 993.8 993.8

The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to adding Lots 33, 34,
35, 36, 37 and Royal Australian Air Force Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) kits after program approval into FRP, dated
November 23, 2009.

Notes
The original contract value reflected the advanced procurement of time-critical parts only.
The December 2013 SAR erroneously reported a Current Quantity of 68 kits vice 92 kits. There are no additional quantity
changes this year and the Current Contract Price and Estimated Price at Completion values remain the same.
AEA kit deliveries on this contract were completed ahead of schedule.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 32
12:07:44
Contract Name: System Configuration Sets (SCS) Contract
St. Louis, MO 63166
Contract Number: N68936-14-D-0008
Contract Type: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), Cost Plus Fixed
Fee (CPFF)
Definitization Date: December 12, 2013
Contract Price
872.8 N/A 90 872.8 N/A 90 872.8 872.8

Cost and Schedule Variance reporting is not required on this (IDIQ/CPIF/CPFF) contract.
Notes
The Program Executive Officer for Tactical Aircraft Programs approved a deviation (dated July 24, 2013) to exclude EVM
requirements for CPFF level-of-effort task orders on this contract. There have been no CPIF orders awarded on this
contract. As a result, there are no EVM metrics reported.
The Current Contract Price Target for the basic contract reflects the value at contract award.
The value, quantities, and funding for each delivery or task order issued under this IDIQ contract are individually negotiated.
This contract includes shared costs and quantities for U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 and EA-18G
platforms.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 33
12:07:44
Appropriation: RDT&E
Contract Name: EA-18G ALQ-218 Operational Test Program Sets (OTPSs)
Contractor Location: 6200 James S McDonnell Boulevard
Berkeley, MO 63134
Contract Number: N68335-10-G-0012/46
Contract Type: Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)
Award Date: September 25, 2013
Contract Price
41.8 N/A 14 49.8 N/A 14 49.8 49.8

The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to contract
modifications being awarded to fund technical support for the development efforts from Northrop Grumman (NGC) to Boeing
on CLIN 0001.
Contract Variance
Item Cost Variance Schedule Variance
Cumulative Variances To Date (1/28/2016) +2.4 -1.2
Previous Cumulative Variances +1.8 -0.7
Net Change +0.6 -0.5

The favorable net change in the cost variance is due to the ability to automate requirements generation, use of existing
Boeing Unigraphics models of Weapons Replaceable Assemblies, and use of existing cable designs provided by Northrop
Grumman.
The unfavorable net change in the schedule variance is due to additional time required to complete requirements
documentation primarily due to Critical Design Review documentation associated with the Ancillary Set, resulting in a
scheduled delay starting Integration.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 34
12:07:44
Contract Name: EA-18G FRP (Lot 38-39)
St. Louis, MO 63166
Contract Type: Fixed Price Incentive(Firm Target) (FPIF)
Award Date: June 30, 2014
Definitization Date: June 30, 2014
Contract Price
1466.9 1488.9 33 2568.0 2635.3 48 2568.0 2568.0

The difference between the Initial Contract Price Target and the Current Contract Price Target is due to the contract
modification to include the procurement of Lot 38-39 AEA kits, Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) specific obsolescence
efforts, and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) unique hardware and support.

Cost and Schedule Variance reporting is not required on this (FPIF) contract.
Notes
The EA-18G FRP (Lot 38) contract was awarded on June 30, 2014 for the procurement of 33 EA-18G aircraft with Airborne
Electronic Attack (AEA) kits, which includes 21 U.S. Navy (USN) aircraft and 12 RAAF aircraft. A contract modification was
awarded on October 26, 2015 for the procurement of 15 EA-18G aircraft with AEA kits.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition and Procurement approved a deviation (Deviation No. 14-N-907,
dated May 29, 2014) to exclude EVM requirements on this contract.
All contract values above reflect the procurement of the EA-18G variant only.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 35
12:07:44
Deliveries and Expenditures
Deliveries
Percent
Delivered to Date Planned to Date Actual to Date Total Quantity
Delivered
Development 0 0 0 --
Production 114 114 160 71.25%
Total Program Quantity Delivered 114 114 160 71.25%
Expended and Appropriated (TY $M)

Total Acquisition Cost 15672.4 Years Appropriated 13
Expended to Date 10583.0 Percent Years Appropriated 72.22%
Percent Expended 67.53% Appropriated to Date 15114.8
Total Funding Years 18 Percent Appropriated 96.44%
The above data is current as of February 17, 2016.
The previous reported aircraft deliveries of 116 aircraft was an error due to miscalculation.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 36
12:07:44
Operating and Support Cost
Cost Estimate Details

Date of Estimate: February 16, 2016
Source of Estimate: POE
Quantity to Sustain: 160
Unit of Measure: Aircraft
Service Life per Unit: 29.00 Years
Fiscal Years in Service: FY 2008 - FY 2046
The variable components of the cost estimate such as the Flying Hour Program (FHP) are based on the number of
aircraft operational years available and the flight hours which they generate. Some elements such as personnel and their
associated indirect and training costs are dependent on the number of squadrons and their manning requirements. Other
fixed elements such as sustaining engineering are based on a cost per aircraft. Modification and airframe and support
equipment depot maintenance are estimated as the total requirement and then applied on a cost per aircraft basis.
Consumption rate, gallons per hour: 1,305
Number of Aircraft Operating Years: 4,449
Flight Hours per aircraft per month: 26.4
Petroleum, Oil, Lubrication (POL) cost, JP-5 per gallon FY 2004$: 1.00
Fatigue Life (Flight Hours): 7,500
Operational Service Life (Flight Hours): 9,000
Total Life Cycle Flight Hours: 1,334,563
Sustainment Strategy
The EA-18G Support strategy is based on the following assumptions for basing and utilization.
Primary Mission Authorized Aircraft (PMAA) will be comprised of ten Carrier Air Wing (CVW) squadrons (each with 7
PMAA), one of which will be part of the Forward Deployed Naval Force (FDNF) stationed out of Yokosuka, Japan, five
Expeditionary Squadrons (each with 5 PMAA), and one reserve Squadron (5 PMAA). All squadrons are manned to the
level required to execute the Expeditionary mission for a total of 100 PMAA aircraft. The Fleet Replacement Squadron will
consist of 26 Aircraft Primary Training Aircraft Authorization (PTAA) aircraft.
EA-18G and F/A-18E/F common maintenance training will be conducted at Naval Air Station (NAS), Lemoore, California
(CA), with peculiar EA-18G AEA maintenance training being conducted at NAS Whidbey Island, WA. Initial aircrew
training will be conducted at NAS Whidbey Island, WA.
EA-18G and F/A-18E/F common Intermediate Level (I-Level) maintenance will be conducted at NAS Lemoore, CA to
include the F414 engine. Limited I-Level for some EA-18G and F/A-18E/F common maintenance tasks has been
established at Whidbey Island, WA. Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) I-Level maintenance will be stood up at Whidbey
Island and aboard the CVWs commencing FY18. EA-18G Depot Level (D-Level) maintenance will follow the directives as
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 37
12:07:44
published in the ILS, SCM and F414 support contracts. This support strategy focuses on the integration of existing F/A-
18F support, support that was developed for the EA-6B equipment common to the EA-18G, and development of support
for EA-18G unique design circumstances. While the EA-18G AEA equipment is based on the ICAP-III system that was
developed for the EA-6B, much of it is repackaged, some with added EA-18G unique components, and some new design
EA-18G equipment.
Antecedent Information
Antecedent program: EA-6B
Consumption rate, gallons per hour: 1,084
Number of Aircraft Operating Years: 4,449 (not actual, but used in order to provide a comparison between the EA-18G
and its antecedent platform)
Flight Hours per aircraft per month: 29.2
POL Cost, JP-5 per gallon FY 2004$: 1.00
Source of Antecedent Information: Naval Visibility and Management Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC)
database Aircraft Type Model Series Report (ATMSR)
For comparison purposes, the BY Antecedent’s Average Annual Cost per Aircraft is derived from total FY 2010 - FY 2014
cost from the Navy VAMOSC ATMSR, divided by the total number of aircraft in ATMSR for FY 2010 - FY 2014. This value
is then multiplied by the total number of aircraft operating years associated with EA-18G to provide a point of comparison.
Annual O&S Costs BY2004 $M

EA-18G EA-6B (Antecedent)
Cost Element
Average Annual Cost Per Aircraft Average Annual Cost Per Aircraft
Unit-Level Manpower 1.470 2.043
Unit Operations 0.625 0.535
Maintenance 2.390 3.313
Sustaining Support 0.132 0.290
Continuing System Improvements 1.053 1.629
Indirect Support 0.341 0.341
Other 0.000 0.000
Total 6.011 8.151
Total O&S Cost $M

EA-18G
Item
Current Production APB EA-6B (Antecedent)
Current Estimate
Objective/Threshold
Base Year 14743.0 16217.3 26743.01 36262.8
Then Year 24508.2 N/A 48459.2 N/A
1
APB O&S Cost Breach
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 38
12:07:44
Due to an updated methodology being used to estimate flight hours to more closely align flight hour projections with those
in the Naval Synchronization Tool (NST) an additional 691 aircraft operating years and $3,062 BY 2004 $M was added to
the O&S Cost Estimate. The updated methodology calculates aircraft operating years based on EA-18G Total Aircraft
Inventory (TAI) that includes pipeline aircraft to align with NST. Previous methodology utilized Primary Aircraft Authorized
(PAA) that does not include pipeline aircraft. Due to the addition of 7 aircraft to the Program of Record (PoR) in FY 2016
(Lot 40), 203 operating years have been added to the PoR which adds $868 BY 2004 $M to the O&S Cost Estimate.
Both of these contributed to the O&S cost breach.
Equation to Translate Annual Cost to Total Cost

The Average Annual Cost Per Aircraft for the EA-18G is calculated by Dividing the Total O&S Cost of $26,743.0 BY 2004
$M by the Total Aircraft Operating Years of 4,449 for the program resulting in $6.011 BY 2004 $M per aircraft per year.
O&S Cost Variance

BY 2004
Category Change Explanations
$M
Prior SAR Total O&S Estimates - Dec 23232.6
2014 SAR
Programmatic/Planning Factors 868.2 Seven EA-18G aircraft added to Lot 40: PMAA of CVW
squadrons increased from six to seven.
Cost Estimating Methodology 3061.9 Updated methodology used to calculate flight hours to
more closely align with the flight hour projections in the
NST.
Cost Data Update 60.2 Updates in aviation depot-level repairable and aviation fleet
maintenance pricing.
Labor Rate 14.9 Slight increases in FY 2016 composite labor rates.
Energy Rate -103.7 Decrease in fuel price.
Technical Input -391.1 Decrease in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)
estimate and increase in F414 Engine/Module Mean Engine
Flight Hour Between Repair (MEFHBR).
Other 0.0
Total Changes 3510.4
Current Estimate 26743.0
Disposal Estimate Details

Date of Estimate: February 16, 2016
Source of Estimate: POE
Disposal/Demilitarization Total Cost (BY 2004 $M): Total costs for disposal of all Aircraft are 29.8
The TY $M value is $55.1.
March 17, 2016

UNCLASSIFIED 39
12:07:44











 
 


 
 

 
 








































       
  
   

      
          
         
        
       
       
         

                
    
 
                    
                
                
             
                 
                 
   
               
                
              
                
      

  

 










2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Doc #86 - DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN With Attached Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Doc #86 - DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN With Attached Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ-JRC Document 86 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 11

1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones

11 Plaintiffs, NO. 2:19-cv-01059-RAJ

18 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER EDMUND GREACEN

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

1 3. I am a member of COER. I joined COER on 25 June, 2019 because I am concerned

8 Development Bank, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

9 5. I reviewed the following documents regarding Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions in

16 c. The Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR)

1 e. The) “Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)” for EA-18G Growler Aircraft

8 g. An EPA December 1992 document titled “Procedures for Emission

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EIS METHOD FOR CALCULATING EMISSIONS

9 in Appendix B[.]” GRR 105636 (DEIS); GRR 151046 (FEIS).

23 same as described in Section 4.4.2.1.3”).

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

7 is grossly under-estimating actual fuel consumption per operation.

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

23 but has received no response.”

Bricklin & Newman, LLP

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)

EA-18G Growler Aircraft (EA-18G)

Defense Acquisition Management

May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

SAR Baseline (Production Estimate)

May 21, 2013

Mission and Description

May 21, 2013

As of January 31, 2013, EA-18G aircraft have flown 57,903 hours.

May 21, 2013

APB Breaches Explanation of Breach

May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

requirements requirements requirements

May 21, 2013

Acronyms And Abbreviations

Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission.

May 21, 2013

APPN 1319 BA 05 PE 0604269N (Navy)

Project 3063 EA-18G Development

APPN 1506 BA 01 PE 0204154N (Navy)

ICN 0143 APN-1 EA-18G

APPN 1506 BA 06 PE 0204154N (Navy)

ICN 0605 APN-6 EA-18G Spares (Shared) (Sunk)

APPN 1205 BA 01 PE 0703676N (Navy)

Project P193 EA-18G Facility Improvements (Sunk)

May 21, 2013

Cost and Funding

Total Acquisition Cost and Quantity

SAR Baseline Current APB

May 21, 2013

Cost and Funding

Appropriation and Quantity Summary

May 21, 2013

Cost and Funding

Annual Funding By Appropriation

Annual Funding TY$

May 21, 2013

Annual Funding BY$

May 21, 2013

Annual Funding TY$