lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (DRCOA1: :LENOCHS) (05/02/91)
From: "DRCOA1::LENOCHS" <lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil> In Volume 7 : Issue 14, Steve Bellovin sez: >Call it meta-logistics: Lockheed got the contract because >Northrop already has a big contract, for the B-2. And CDR replied: >[Not an argument I'd buy Well, folks, I beg to differ. In the world of military contracts, AF has been trying for years not to get into the same fix the Navy was in with submarines - tied to a single contractor (i.e., the GD/Rickover problem). In addition to having multiple sources of engineering expertise and multiple groups of hi-tech assemblers, the competition keeps prices *somewhat* in line. Look at the surface Navy's recent procurements from Newport News Shipbuilding as a case in point. NNS has been using the fact of their contracts with the Navy in advertisements for world business (as well as their on-time delivery). Another benefit is derived from competition - new ideas. When the F-16 and F-17 had their fly-off, the loser became the F-18 (the first new airplane the Navy has gotten/will get for quite some time). As other contributors have pointed out, these are not the only concerns. The judgement against Northrop would (IMHO) have played a major role in selection. Also, Northrop has no recent experience in successfully building a military aircraft (F-5 was their last good airplane deal; F-20 was stillborn; B-2 is a fiasco). Lockheed, on the other hand, has proven it's capability of giving the AF what it wants: F-104, U-2, SR-71, F-117A. In the last three cases, Lockheed not only delivered the aircraft on time, they kept quiet about it for significantly long periods of time, and at a business disadvantage. (When the ATF was still on paper, Lockheed complained that they could not realistically compete with Northrop for the contract because they could not talk about their most recent success story - F117A - while Northrop was plastering the walls with B-2 photos. AF agreed and the news from Tonopah started.) So, the awarding the ATF contract to Lockheed makes much more sense than to Northrop from a variety of viewpoints. [ Yes, I'll certainly believe this reasoning. --CDR] Loyd M. Enochs - Dynamics Research Corp <Flames to lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil>
smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (05/04/91)
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov In lenochs%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (DRCOA1: :LENOCHS) writes... >... In the world of military contracts, AF >has been trying for years not to get into the same fix the Navy was in >with submarines - tied to a single contractor (i.e., the GD/Rickover >problem). With the loss of the ATF contract and the uncertainty of the B-2, Northrop may be out of the airframe business. Grumman, with the stoppage of the F-14 line and no further work on the A-6 models is probably out the airframe business. With the cancellation of the A-12, the loss of the ATF and LHX contracts, and the winding down of the F-15 and Apache production lines, McDonnell-Douglas' future is far from certain. The only companies with a future are GD (ATF), Boeing (ATF and LHX), and United Technologies (ATF and LHX). The contractor base is or will be shrinking further. >As other contributors have pointed out, these are not the only >concerns. The judgement against Northrop would (IMHO) have played a >major role in selection. Also, Northrop has no recent experience in >successfully building a military aircraft Neither does Boeing. > (F-5 was their last good >airplane deal; F-20 was stillborn; B-2 is a fiasco). How is the B-2, a fiasco? >Lockheed, on the other hand, has proven it's capability of giving the >AF what it wants: F-104, U-2, SR-71, F-117A. The F-104 was not what the AF wanted otherwise why did we buy so few of them and foist them on the allies. When was the last time that Lockheed build a mass-production fighter? > In the last three cases, >Lockheed not only delivered the aircraft on time, they kept quiet about >it for significantly long periods of time, and at a business >disadvantage. The U-2, SR-71, F-117A were all black programs hiding from the prying eyes of pork-barreling and political agendas of Washington. Lockheed's YF-22 first flight was a year late while that of Northrup was early. >So, the awarding the ATF contract to Lockheed makes much more sense >than to Northrop from a variety of viewpoints. Haven't seen any yet ;-)