Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Inviting European Manufacturers To Bid  
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 67
Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

According to an article in the Financial Times


the US Air Force secretary has "called for European defence contractors to get more access to Pentagon contracts to stimulate stiffer competition in the US domestic aerospace industry" - and goes on to say "It's the only way we're going to discipline the big airframe makers in the United States".

Do you think that the Pentagon is really contemplating "buying European" (on a wider scale - I know that there are already some European products in use) - or is he just trying to calm Europe down a bit?

What are your opinions - I for one am really not sure how realistic this is, though I'd like it, if it were true...


[Edited 2004-06-10 11:51:53]

Smile - it confuses people!
3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

It's just an attempt to drive prices down. When you have a vertual monopoly you can charge what you want. Maybe the Pentagon has finally woken up to the fact that they are being constantly ripped off (just as the MOD are being ripped off by BAES)

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Actually it's hard to rip off the DoD with the nature of the contracts that issues these days for most new projects (though to cut cost overruns aircraft contracts are sometimes fixed price contracts, but some aircraft companies are weary of these since Northrop got screwed over in the B-2 deal).

Most DoD contracts are issued cost plus, which means they only get the cost of the aircraft plus a certain percentage profit tacked on. Also the contractors must have an integrated accounting system, so they can audit to make sure, that if you ask the government for $400 for Susie secretary, you actually pay that out.

In fact it was a Haliburtian internal audit that revealed that they overcharged the DoD for the gas, and admitted it, not the other way around.

At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

I think by "rip-off" he meant the Pentagon pays more than someone paying his own money would pay, and more than a truly free market would allow. He is not claiming that pentagon contractors cheat on contract terms. They don't need to. If the game is rigged in your favor from the start, there is no need to cheat.

Suppose you were looking to buy a house. A builder came to you and offered to build it for his price plus a couple percent. The more you spend, the more he makes. There is no way he can loose money by his own negligence - you pay for his mistakes. If the house actually ends up costing more to build than the builder promised - YOU pay the extra, and the builder gets MORE profit because he gets a percentage of what is spent. The builder has no incentive to minimize his costs. In fact, he has every incentive to take as long as possible and spend as much as possible - provided that you do not give up on building the house. Even then, he will not loose the money you have already spent.

Would you sign such a contract? The Pentagon does, every day. Originally, cost plus contracts were given to preserve our defense industrial base (particularly shipyards) during periods of lower defense spending. There is some justification for them because defense systems do involve more financial risk than building a house. However. it has gotten out of hand. The Pentagon has to spend a lot of money and set up many beaureaucratic controls to minimize the abuse of this kind of contract. Even so, little incentive remains for defense contractors to be creative in devising new military capabilities or in controling costs. The kind of controls that are needed to control the cost-plus system simply cause more delay and expenditure, and stiffle creativity.

The department has made some efforts to reform - by including terms to give companies some incentive to come in on time and under budget, but the "cost plus" contract still rules. That is how government, and government-dependant corperations, spend our money.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Inviting European Manufacturers To Bid
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WSJ: Congress Wants KC-777, Boeing Likely To Bid posted Mon Dec 5 2005 15:39:09 by N328KF
USAF: From "P" To "F" posted Fri Feb 27 2004 02:15:02 by Dahawaiian
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
USAF Spec Ops To Get Pilatus PC-12 posted Thu May 25 2006 13:26:58 by Svenskpilot
NYTimes: Usaf Wants Alternative To Oil-based Fuel posted Sat May 13 2006 22:26:36 by Pmg1704
Going US Army To Usaf posted Wed Mar 15 2006 13:18:02 by SCEagle

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format