Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why Lockheed?
Message-ID: <1991May4.020932.20219@amd.com>
Date: 3 May 91 17:08:08 GMT
References: <1991May3.063531.5861@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 54
Approved: military@amd.com


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 ;-)