Actually CC, I fully agree with all of your comments. As far as the Boeing Vertol name, I use that name out of homage more than anything else. I also continually call the Boeing St Louis facility, McBoeing for a similar reason.
Lockheed’s perspective of the ATA program is also spot on, from the Lockheed perspective. The Lockheed skunk works is used to writing their own contracts with the USAF. The NAVAIR ATA contract demanded an impossibility compressed development schedule, plus a max weight requirement based on customer furnished values for LO materials.
The ATA development schedule was impossibly compressed due to the need to race with existing USAF for rapidly shrinking DOD funds. The Soviet Union was rapidly falling apart, and many in the US government saw this as a opportunity for major reductions in DOD funding. Because of course, we would never need to worry about Russia as an adversary ever again.
To leverage existing LO material development funded by the DOD by Northrop and Lockheed, NAVAIR committed to providing this technology for ATA development to the winner. After The ATA contract was awarded, Both Lockheed and Northrop under a wink-wink from the USAF held up delivery of the technology to NAVAIR.
Bringing this back around to Helicopter’s. Why would a major prime enter into contract with impossible to meet requirements? Because that’s the way the game was played 40 years ago. Based on the US Army recently admitting that the FARA requirements are impossible to meet, nothing has changed.
Interestingly enough, I had the opportunity to briefly work on the AX program as a supplier to Grumman. A much smaller aircraft, with more reasonable specifications requirements, except for schedule. The AX program never went beyond the proposal stage, and the F-18 Super Hornet, now known as the E/F was developed as a low cost and risk alternative.
If I may, a couple more notes confirming what you said. One of the things interesting about the ATA contract is that a lot of what went on wasn't known for years and only came out when all the lawsuits from both sides went to court. GD said the cancellation was a Termination for Convenience, which entitled them to recovery of some of the costs. Gov't said it was a Termination for Default, also known in some cases as a Termination for Cause, which meant the Contractor gets nothing and in some cases the Gov't gets some of its money back. During the discovery and testimony phases it came out that (I don't know what they were smoking) GD based their bid partly on the expectation that they would be provided data on Northrop's and Lockheed's test results and some of the particular techniques ways they used to achieve what they achieved. Both N and L responded at the time, "Uh, excuse me? Are you familiar with the meaning of the terms 'Proprietary Processes and Technology'"?. As far as the data on stealth in general that the Gov't itself owned, all of that was controlled by USAF. Now USAF wasn't too keen on potentially adopting another Navy aircraft but would rather develop their own aircraft and in any case, didn't want Navy to continue to be inveigled in long range attack, feeling that was one of their own missions and no one else should get to perform it. But they ah to appear to be playing the game. Sooo, they never actually refused to supply the data, but naturally they could only supply it to engineers and designers that could qualify for the stratospheric clearance level necessary to see and work with it. Now who do you think was the authority on who would qualify for such august access? What transpired is left as an exercise for the student.
With the end of the ATA and the upcoming retirement of the A-6, there was going to be too big a gap before the A-X could come on line. It was announced that the Super Hornet be procured as an "interim" aircraft to bridge that gap. Later A-X-A/F-X was canceled partly because USN was aware that the Bug/Super Bug and tremendous support in Congress and a bird in the hand...
"Why would a major prime enter into contract with impossible to meet requirements? Because that’s the way the game was played 40 years ago". Absolutely right. And then, as in now, when it's the only game in town you take the chance and hope that maybe the customer will come to its senses somewhere along the way. Don't you find it fascinating that the Program Management of the program has said it can't be built as specified and yet no one's head has exploded over this? I eagerly await further developments...