Home » Air » Dicks ‘Sure Thing’ For HAC-D

Dicks ‘Sure Thing’ For HAC-D

By Colin Clark Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 1:18 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

Rep. Norm Dicks, Boeing supporter extraordinaire, is the “closest thing to a sure thing you get in Washington” to ascend to chairmanship of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, says defense sage and consultant Loren Thompson.

I asked Thompson, who was desperately seeking salt to battle the next winter storm, if Dicks’ ascension would mean that Boeing would have undue influence on the decisions of the House spending body. “They say that becoming chairman has an effect on the way one behaves I guess we are going to see if that’s true,” Thompson said. He pointed out that Dicks comes “from a very different regional political cultural and a very different generation,” obviously referring to Murtha’s time as a Marine in Vietnam and the pretty conservative rural district from which he came in Pennsylvania.

Also, Dicks has defense contractors — Boeing preeminent among them, but not alone — in his district so if he delivers a robust defense budget the companies in his district will almost certainly benefit. Murtha headed the defense spending subcommittee but did not have major defense contractors in his district. That, Thompson said, may have contributed to Murtha’s focus on delivering defense earmarks.

The biggest programmatic winner from Dicks’ donning of the defense cardinal’s mantle will be Boeing’s tanker. Murtha pushed for a dual buy from Northrop Grumman and from Boeing. He wanted to push the buy to 26 from the planned 15 planes. Dicks has absolutely no incentive to push for a dual buy. And Northrop Grumman’s executives have pretty much concluded that they cannot win under the terms of the draft RFP. And word so far from the Pentagon is that the final RFP will not differ much from the draft, notwithstanding Alabama Senator Richard Shelby’s grandstand effort of the last few days to hold up a raft of Obama nominees. Shelby made it clear he wanted the Pentagon to change the final RFP so it would be friendlier to Northrop. He has lifted most of the holds but has kept holds on at least three pending senior Air Force officials’ nominations: Terry Yonkers, assistant secretary of the Air Force; Frank Kendall, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology, and togistics; and Erin Conaton, Air Force undersecretary.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	CharlesHouston February 9th, 2010 at 7:50 pm There are certainly arguments for both sides of the “split tanker” buy, but one thing for sure (except that it will be impossible to convince Byron) is that we need to replace the KC-135s. We cannot just give any aircraft builder a non-competitive contract but we gotta get someone working on a replacement aircraft. At this point it would be better to have Cessna working on an aircraft than no one.
	Old391 February 10th, 2010 at 12:28 pm NGC/EADS can say Good Bye to a Fair Tanker Deal with the “Dick” in Murtha old position. Boeing will raise prices and be late ontheir contract and will be able to get away with it since “Dick” is running the committee now
	soonergrunt February 11th, 2010 at 12:11 pm What is the merit of a ‘split buy’ over buying one platform? Really? I can see several problems, and I suppose some tactical/strategic reasons to do it, but all sorts of downsides. Basically, is there any reason to go with a split buy OTHER than not hurting someone’s feelings? I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I really do want to know.
	Billion $ Error February 11th, 2010 at 2:20 pm Notm has opposed Speaker Polosi on some key issues — in the OLD days he would be a “sure thing” but under this regime, who knows?
	Phoenix February 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm Business as usual, deals under the guise of studies, continued bickering over who is in charge, same old political arguments — saves a lot of taxpayers money NOT!
	John King February 12th, 2010 at 4:45 am A sole source contract results in higher prices when there is no competition to force prices down. Dual sourcing or a year-to-year, head-to-head competition will drive prices down 15 to 30 percent, as the two competitors bump heads to get the lion’s share of the profits by removing “excess costs” in their supply chain and manufacturing processes. If you don’t dual source, that 30 percent “excess cost” goes into the pockets of the company making the item. Plus, will no competition, they will slowly raise prices. Sole source contract sare NEVER a good deal for the taxpayer.
	mike j February 12th, 2010 at 5:24 am Are there any downsides?
	soonergrunt February 12th, 2010 at 11:20 am John King–thanks for the answer. Here’s my problems: If there were two manufacturers producing the same plane, I could agree with you 100%, but we’re talking different aircraft here with very few, if any, common parts. So isn’t a split buy only exacerbating the problem by creating two sole sources, to say nothing of needing two separate supply chains and personnel requirments for the same mission? If we need two different airframes, that’s one thing, but is that the case? Am I just spewing or am I on to something here?
	max headroom February 17th, 2010 at 11:04 am Murtha dies from complications to gall bladder surgery? And dicks, the bought and paid for boeing lackey ascends to the chair? With potentially hundreds of billions at stake? Just wow! Hollywood couldn’t write a better script.