Originally Posted by
JohnDixson
But that was 50 years ago, with a completely different leadership group, both at UTC corporate and at Sikorsky.
John, not only has Sikorsky as a company changed substantially over the past 50 years, so have Boeing and Bell.
A major reason Bell lost UTTAS program to Sikorsky, was Bell became complacent, and believed that as the current aircraft provider they were entitled to winning.
Often history repeats itself. Same story, but with players changing roles.
What struck me most regarding the GAO report, was the obvious attempt by Sikorsky/Boeing to win the contract by low balling the bid. The US Army understood full well, that if the contract got a canceled due to cost overruns, their only option would be to continue building the Blackhawk.
Even when disregarding the fact that the Bell tiltrotor is a lower risk and more mature technology compared to Sikorsky X-2 technology, the overall complexity of both aircraft is relatively equal. These bids should’ve been very close to each other.
Plus, does anybody believe that it is cheaper to develop and manufacture an aircraft in PA and CT versus TX?