It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

As Expected, Boeing & Lockheed Protest LRS-B Contract Awaard

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The problem with historical data in this case, is that last year, Northrop Grumman delivered something along the lines of 9 aircraft, and were 50% over budget on average. Boeing and Lockheed delivered almost 400 aircraft, with something like a 40% overrun on average. So you're comparing a company that hand makes a few aircraft, and still goes over budget, to Ford mass producing them, and going over budget.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
And with Tanker over budget and F-35 with no end to be over budget, its realy laughing they protest Northrop, just for that I hope Northrop will win the 6th gen fighter contract too.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

You think that delivering a total of NINE aircraft, and having your over budget average be 50% is GOOD? If you can't even keep the overall cost of that few aircraft low, what are you going to do with 100 aircraft?

As for the tanker, yes, it's over budget, but it's fixed price. That means that Boeing has paid almost every dime of it, not the government. And it will continue to get better as they go. The F-35 has dropped in price with every LRIP, and is trending down.
edit on 12/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Ok for that Zaph but why not protest more on the capacity of the demonstrator instead of the cost , because all the company are over the cost all the time. In my opinion there is a urgent to build the LRS-B and this battle is another waste of time for the USAF.
Don't you think the USAF make is choice on the capacity instead of the cost? If you have the better plane how the other competitor can protest, its like loosing a race and say "I m not agree" i'm the second but I want to be the first too ( in my opinion) but you surely now better than me how it work for the selection

edit on 19-12-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

The two aircraft are too close, and very rarely is an award overturned because one aircraft is better than the other. It's always about cost and ability, not just ability. Or because the RFP was written poorly.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Do you think the protest have a chance to change the choice like the Tanker battle between Northrop and Boeing? or this time the game is over ?


edit on 19-12-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

I'd bet this is going to be rejected. If the USAF is bound by law the way they say for evaluating cost overruns and they went the several extra miles they did, then I think NG has this.

OTOH, I have been and will be wrong.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Going by percentages Boeing and Lockheed have the lower overruns, unless they looked at them separately and calculated it through that. Northrop has a much lower delivery rate but higher overrun average per delivery.

They did everything they were supposed to do, but did they make the right decision is the question.
edit on 12/19/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah it was awful suprising to me that they went with Northrop and claimed it would be cheaper. Now they are claiming to have gone purely on historical data to show the projected cost but wouldn't this point to Boeing/Lockheed having better return rates?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

Based on everything I've seen, if you were to increase Northrop production to the same levels, yes. If they only looked at the deliveries, and the average, then that would favor Northrop, artificially. That would be a possible overturn.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It appears to me that skewed data, and a strong urge to keep Northrop in the manned a/c game is what swayed them. Even if they claim that had nothing to do with it, w/e knowing any of the platform's stats.
edit on 19-12-2015 by Bfirez because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

From what I read the other day, both bids were very similar, around $10B. They did two estimates, one was the worst case scenario, and came in at just under $24B total cost for the EMD program. That's the one that looked at past performance. The other came in around $10B, was the more realistic of the two estimates.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This is why I much more prefer working for a private company, I just stick the words, " the company is not bound to accept the lowest bid or any bid based on its own acceptance criteria which it does not have to make available. In bidding for this work the respondent forgoes it's right to challenge the companies decision."

Job jobbed!

I do not miss the probity of defence and government acquisition?



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

You think that delivering a total of NINE aircraft, and having your over budget average be 50% is GOOD? If you can't even keep the overall cost of that few aircraft low, what are you going to do with 100 aircraft?

As for the tanker, yes, it's over budget, but it's fixed price. That means that Boeing has paid almost every dime of it, not the government. And it will continue to get better as they go. The F-35 has dropped in price with every LRIP, and is trending down.


I wouldn't say it's good, but considering that Boeing and Lockheed would (should) have economies of scale on their side as well as a rapidly declining learning curve, then their 40% average overrun on 400 units is absolutely horrible.

Look at carriers. Their a low unit production item, and they find ways to shave tens of millions off each new one.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join