PDA

View Full Version : Westlands on the Brink of Blowing It... Again.


ProfessionalStudent
17th Feb 2009, 19:09
The Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article5748796.ece)

So it seems that the MoD aren't the only ones who keep moving the goalposts.

... but then the Dod DID re-run the tanker competition so Boeing could win it this time round.

Maybe the doubling in prices gave the DoD a convenient excuse.

tucumseh
17th Feb 2009, 19:59
Sorry, but I can’t reconcile any of your post with what the Times article says.


Westland say the spec has changed, the US say it hasn’t. Given the moving feast that passes for our own “requirements”, causing the same problems on UK contracts over many years, I’m with Westland until proven otherwise.

wg13_dummy
17th Feb 2009, 20:05
I too would tend to be on Westlands side (God, did I actually say that??).

Having had a bit of visibility into the project, the yanks aint exactly clear on what they want or what they choose to tell AW. DoD specify they want a 'box' in such and such a place, AW ask 'whats the box for and can we have the spec so we can integrate it'. DoD refuse and tell AW 'its secret'. AW have problems trying to build an aircraft where they haven't got a clue what half the bits are for.


Serves 'em right. ;)

hoodie
17th Feb 2009, 20:11
Well, now.

This analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16chopper.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=us) identifies the cause of much of the cost over-runs to the Customer's changing requirements, rather than being down to the Contractor (LM / A-W).

“What you had here was a collision between the urgency of the White House and the rules of the Navy’s acquisition,” said Loren B. Thompson, the head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization that provides advice to Lockheed and other defense contractors. “The White House wanted to field a helicopter much faster, and the Navy wanted to make sure it met all of the rules for a safe helicopter.“It doesn’t sound irreconcilable,” he continued, “but in the end, it caused a lot of cost growth.”
So does this one (http://uk.reuters.com/article/tnBasicIndustries-SP/idUKN2928194120090129) (in effect).

The key factors driving the program's spiraling cost and schedule are "required technical upgrades to system components and the design, test, and qualification time it will take to field this aircraft," [Navy spokesman Lt.] Doss said in a statement.

But hey, Westland-bashing is a PPRuNe staple, so what do the New York Times or the US Navy know?

ProfessionalStudent
17th Feb 2009, 20:28
Okay, so the 1st bit is a little harsh and I retract my comment sbout AW , but it does seem convenient for the US to analyse the costs and see if they can "re-broke" the deal.

I suppose I was more frustrated to see a British company being seen off by the US. I was more than a little surprised when AW won the contract (and a bit proud too) - it's just a shame that the project seems destined to fail. I don't think it matters what the reason for failure is, it's still a failure.

wg13_dummy
17th Feb 2009, 20:34
If it does get binned, I can see a hasty 're-pricing' of FLynx. £40million per Lynx anyone? :hmm:

TheWizard
17th Feb 2009, 20:53
Bugger, bang goes our exchange visit!:sad::}

Evalu8ter
18th Feb 2009, 07:48
WG-13,
I shouldn't worry about AW. If the VHX contract is anything as tight as the original Canadian Merlin purchase they'll do very well out of liquidated damages clauses, plus the US have paid the NRE for the improved Xmsns, blades and engines that the Merlin has always needed. AW will lose a bit of prestige, however they will benefit from an improved product for future export competitions and the MoD will benefit from a de-risked future growth path.

So, a little bit of short term pain (spun to shift most of the blame to Credit crunch protectionism / DoD Requirements creep / LockMart Project Management) then, hey presto, a new marketing campaign extolling the virtues of the "new" Merlin.

Mister-T
18th Feb 2009, 08:15
Is this just a level of beaurocracy that is implemented in such cases and if so will it sail through given the time and money already spent?

I for one would like to see the project continue and hope one day to see the aircraft in use.

dangermouse
18th Feb 2009, 16:39
Move along, nothing to see here.

The Nunn-McCurdy law in the US mandates a review of any procurement project and a freeze on investment, if the original budget is predicted to be exceeded by over 50% (regardless of reason). The review then has to justify if the need still is worth the money, this has happened to several programmes for example

C5M projct was reviewed and not cancelled
ARH70 was (I Think twice) reviewed and then cancelled

VH71 is just another.

The reason for the increase in costs is dealt with in posts 3 and 4, remember the contract is with LM not AWH.

DM

Gnd
18th Feb 2009, 17:37
WG - I faint at the thought - you, I thought I was the onlt turn coat!!!!!:eek:

LowObservable
19th Feb 2009, 17:52
AFAIK, this is entirely the result of the original program manager not being able to resist the White House staff and the NSA, the consequence being runaway requirements creep.