Well, now.
This analysis 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).
Originally Posted by NYT
“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 (in effect).
Originally Posted by Reuters
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?