The Pentagon, in its infinite wisdom, has defaulted the Bomber program to a sole source provider of American long range defense structure. Both Boeing and Lockheed lost the bid and may well loose interest in future bomber making. Thus leaving Northrop, the sole source of LRB making going forward.
The Pentagon scheme of things was preserving a manufacturer in competitive bidding. They preserved the Northrup complex. Choosing Lockheed's F-35 bid over Boeing, they preserved Lockheed as a Fighter builder over Boeing's scheme. Now what has Boeing been targeted to do for the pentagon, freight? Yeah, Boeing is now the freight and drone center for the Pentagon.
The Pentagon has used its procurement process as a means to shape a sole sourcing equipment strategy for military procurement by default. Boeing, a capable Bomber provider may no longer want a part of that dog fight in future bid wars. Otherwise, it will give the Pentagon a marginal bid approach for winning future bomber bids, letting the "other" (Northrop) competitor have its way in a full spectrum effort on the next bid. It also acquiesced its fighter bid with Lockheed submitting its capable but ugly F-32 offer, then losing to the F-35 for a Multi Role Fighter award. However, the Pentagon didn't need a 3 in 1 fighter, it needed a two/for the Navy and Air Force, and should have awarded a sole source F-32 from Boeing for the Marines. They would have preserved two manufacturers competing while splitting the order. Now they have only one interested in building fifth generation fighters at this time, Lockheed. The airframe is constrained by using it for three different roles. A two model bid from one a frame concept, would have made the F-35 greatly enhanced aircraft and more robust for both the Navy and Airforce.
The Pentagon plan inadvertently has diminished our war making, by keeping its manufacturing base spread far out in the industry. The scorecard, is all three big manufacturers now have become a sole source sponsor, but at least they are not entirely out of business.
The military should be tasked with rebuilding a competent defense complex by managing a winning bid process from Value Added awarding. Each bidder brings something to the bid table of high value and should remain in the award process not as the primary recipient but as a secondary awardee. Whether it be a ship, submarine or aircraft, "a competent bid" should have a place at the Military industrial complex table."
In the bomber bid, they are now talking about 80-100 bombers will be built. Not a solid 100 unit proposition at all. When in fact they are considering only 80, they should be considering a second Bomber for its attributes uniquely from the bid process against the winning bid. Putting all your bombs in one basket may result in "the mishap of choosing" the build. They should build 80 of one type and fifty of the other type. The "top while in service performer", wins a future reorder. That is the ultimate goal. The best Bomber winning ultimately.
Oh yes, I am on vacation, sorry for posting this after saying I'm gone for some time off from this keyboard. Gotta go people are coming, shhh.