Originally Posted by
Commando Cody
…
FARA already is intended to replace part of the Apache fleet.
CC,
Since Boeing has lost the capability to compete with engineering excellence, their competition strategy is now more a legal strategy.
Yes, the FARA is planned to eventually replace part of the Boeing Apache fleet. But what if the FARA program becomes delayed or canceled like Comanche and ARH? Boeing keeps the Apache assembly line and DoD money flowing for years or even a decade longer.
Regardless of Boeing having no legal basis to protest a major FARA requirements change, if Boeing can delay or kill FARA, it is to their financial advantage.
The partnership between Sikorsky and Boeing on FLRAA was always just one of convenience and political alignment of goals. Boeing I believe would have zero qualms with stabbing Sikorsky in the back by derailing FARA.
On FLRAA, Boeing’s financial strategy was to invest as close to nothing as possible. Teamed with Bell this was not an option, since Bell demanded an equal share in investment.
The Boeing FLRAA partnership with Sikorsky was primarily a political strategy for both. Financially, Boeing contributed very little during the competition phase. Only after winning contract award was Boeing required to invest significantly for development of the production aircraft.
A decade ago to outsiders, the Sikorsky/Boeing FLRAA team seemed unstoppable. Just their combined congressional industry lobby force dwarfed the size of Bell’s parent company Textron.
There was also very flawed misconception by Sikorsky/Boeing leadership, and industry experts, that working alone Bell was technically and financially incapable of successfully competing for FLRAA.