As the largest, single consumer of helicopters in the market, why can't DoD seem to foment a competitive environment in which they would directly benefit?
A few reasons that have nothing to do with building the better helicopter, and a lot to do with federal laws and federal budgets, and cost.
1. Because the DoD is not the commercial market.
2. Because the logistics tail is immensely cheaper when you have fewer TMS, not more. See USN Helo Master Plan, whose genesis was earl 90's (perhaps even before that).
3. Because federal contracts require a wide variety of in built inefficiencies due to how federal regs are written.
4. The industry developed as rapidly as it did due in part to an immense infusion of federal dollars, from the fifties to the present.
5. The DoD has as part of its remit, as does the federal government when it comes to defense contracts, to sustain the AMERICAN industrial base.
Now, since you probably already know that, I wonder at why you still typed that rant about how competition in and of itself is inherently virtuous and has no drawbacks.
Now, is competition good? Can be. The competition for UTTAS was a good deal. Competition for F-35 ... not sure. Competition for the "light" part of the Navy's light/heavy mix ended up in the F-18. If you've read "the Pentagon Paradox" you'll find that a great many people within the system were appalled at how that turned out. F-18 has since become the E/F, which once again was a decision rife with controversey.
I recall back in the 80's when the Sec Def was able the leverage the developmet of the F-20 as a competing export fighter to the F-16, which was beginning take the place of the F-5 family as the next export fighter, to the point where GD eventually dropped the price of the F-16 multi year deal by about 4 million per copy. That's real money, in those days.
There were other examples, that's the one I am most familiar with. As to how virtuous European Helicopter companies are, NH-90 ... sing me its praises, program-wise.
Insofar as American helicopter companies and the commercial market, I share your concerns that they have gone about their business as though they intended to work themselves out of it ... but I am not convinced that the DoD is to blame for that. I find your assertion along those lines of dubious merit.
Textron and UTC, as parent companies, are run by the standard pile of HBS suits. I'll stop there.
