Time - Are Defense-Contractor Giants Getting Too Big?

[marauder2048]

These links are subscriber only, sorry:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/under-radar-project-aims-slash-boeing-costs?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

Boeing believes a closely held manufacturing technology initiative, code-named Black Diamond, will give it a competitive edge in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and T-X trainer contests and also reduce the costs of future commercial airplane programs, according to outside analysts who have been briefed on it. The effort is led by the Phantom Works unit of Boeing’s Defense, Space & Security division, which is believed to be building a large-scale demonstrator airframe to prove and showcase key technologies.

Black Diamond, one analyst says, is closely linked to new CEO Dennis Muilenburg. “It’s one reason why he’s the next CEO,” that source says. Boeing declined comment on the initiative.

Black Diamond is company-funded and free from government security regulations, which has allowed the company to involve its commercial aircraft unit and its outside partners. Its goal is to advance the state of the art in two related disciplines: engineering based on detailed computer models that include all the physical properties of each part, not just its shape, and robotic fabrication and assembly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-economics-credibility-dominate-bomber-decision?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

The story so far in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program will make fascinating reading when and if the participants can tell it without being tossed into a federal slammer.

It would have been easy if the people who had built a stealth bomber and stealth unmanned air vehicle (UAV) had teamed with the people who build hundreds of large airplanes every year, and have learned the hard way how to do that in composites. But they didn’t, so Pentagon acquisition czar Frank Kendall, Air Force acquisition boss Bill LaPlante and their staffs have had to earn their pay to choose between Northrop Grumman and the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team.

On the face of it I'd think it'd be a no-brainer. NG would be the logical choice from a technical and industrial base point of view. (I can already hear the howls of faux outrage if "LM gets the bomber TOO?" Because we all know, LM getting the contract would make for far juicier headlines than if NG gets it.)

Per your insight (from Time Magazine):

As Lockheed Gobbles Up Sikorsky, Are Defense-Contractor Giants Getting Too Big?

 

[sferrin]

Per your insight (from Time Magazine):

As Lockheed Gobbles Up Sikorsky, Are Defense-Contractor Giants Getting Too Big?

It's interesting that they appear to have a problem with "Defense Contractor Giants" getting "too big" but you don't see the same complaint about companies like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Apple, Google, etc. etc. etc. Did they also happen to mention that most times it's "merge or go out of business"? Where is Republic, North American, Grumman, Vought, McDonnell, Douglas, etc.? Can you imagine the outrage if those companies were getting bailouts year after year, so they could stay in business, because there wasn't enough work to go around? And how is Lockheed Martin owning Sikorsky any different than United Technologies owning Sikorsky from a practical standpoint?

 

[bobbymike]

Per your insight (from Time Magazine):

As Lockheed Gobbles Up Sikorsky, Are Defense-Contractor Giants Getting Too Big?

It's interesting that they appear to have a problem with "Defense Contractor Giants" getting "too big" but you don't see the same complaint about companies like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Apple, Google, etc. etc. etc. Did they also happen to mention that most times it's "merge or go out of business"? Where is Republic, North American, Grumman, Vought, McDonnell, Douglas, etc.? Can you imagine the outrage if those companies were getting bailouts year after year, so they could stay in business, because there wasn't enough work to go around? And how is Lockheed Martin owning Sikorsky any different than United Technologies owning Sikorsky from a practical standpoint?

Because when the media spins the "What the story this week" wheel it sometimes comes up, "Evil Military Industrial Complex" so logical or illogical a story has to be written.

 

[LowObservable]

I'm not sure how WalMart, Apple, Google &c bear on this case, since they are not monopolies and not taxpayer-supported, and the consumer (individually or collectively) pays little-to-zero to find other sources for their products and services.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Per your insight (from Time Magazine):

As Lockheed Gobbles Up Sikorsky, Are Defense-Contractor Giants Getting Too Big?

It's interesting that they appear to have a problem with "Defense Contractor Giants" getting "too big" but you don't see the same complaint about companies like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Apple, Google, etc. etc. etc. Did they also happen to mention that most times it's "merge or go out of business"? Where is Republic, North American, Grumman, Vought, McDonnell, Douglas, etc.? Can you imagine the outrage if those companies were getting bailouts year after year, so they could stay in business, because there wasn't enough work to go around? And how is Lockheed Martin owning Sikorsky any different than United Technologies owning Sikorsky from a practical standpoint?

Really? I guess you don't follow the business world outside of the narrow range of defense stocks.

Does the aborted Sprint and T-Mobile merger in 2014 ring a bell?
Only one of a number of tech/comm mergers in the last decade that didn't go through for various reasons.

 

[Triton]

See:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25091.msg255374.html#msg255374