The Real Winners of the Air Force Bomber Contest

Members of the 354th Fighter Wing inspection team walk toward first responders Jan. 26, 2015, during a major accident response exercise at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Joshua Turner

AA Font size + Print

Members of the 354th Fighter Wing inspection team walk toward first responders Jan. 26, 2015, during a major accident response exercise at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

The Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman to build a new stealth bomber is the first major award in years to withstand a government audit and, for some, a win for Pentagon reforms.

In a ruling Tuesday, government auditors upheld the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award an $80 billion classified contract to Northrop Grumman for a new long-range stealth bomber.

While their rejection of a protest filed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin — the world’s two largest defense firms — is being touted as a financial boon for Northrop, the unseen winners are the Air Force’s arms buyers who worked behind the scenes evaluating the bids.

“We’re pleased with the decision and we’re anxious to get started on the program,” Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s top arms buyer, said in a statement provided by a spokesman.

For the past nine years, the Air Force’s acquisition corps has been living in the shadows of two huge contracts the Government Accountability Office said it bungled:  a $15 billion deal in 2007 to buy a new fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters and a $35 billion award in 2008 to buy a new aerial tanker that could refuel planes in flight. Both contracts were canceled. When DoD rebid them, neither of the two had to undergo the kind of scrutiny just given to Northrop’s bomber contract win. When Boeing won the tanker contract in 2011, the loser, Airbus, did not contest the deal. For the search-and-rescue helicopters in 2014, Sikorsky was the only bidder.

The stealth bomber competition is the first real high-profile test for Air Force arms buyers, who had to evaluate two competing bids from the world’s largest defense firms. They chose Northrop Grumman to build the new plane in October. Days later, the Boeing-Lockheed team filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, which audits contract awards.

GAO reviewed the challenges to the selection decision raised by Boeing and has found no basis to sustain or uphold the protest,” the office said in a statement today. “In denying Boeing’s protest, GAO concluded that the technical evaluation, and the evaluation of costs, was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and in accordance with procurement laws and regulations.”

Since the program is highly classified, the Air Force has not said why the Northrop bid stood out compared to Boeing and Lockheed, just that it “was the best value for the warfighter and the taxpayer,” in the words of Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the service’s top uniformed procurement official.

Since the collapse of the Air Force helicopter and tanker competitions in 2007 and 2008, Kendall and his predecessor, Ash Carter, who is now defense secretary, have ordered significant acquisition reforms for Pentagon arms buyers which seem to have paid off.

“The GAO decision suggests that [Defense Department] assessment of major program bid submissions may have improved,” Byron Callan, an analyst with investment research firm Capital Alpha Partners, wrote in a note to investors.

Tuesday’s ruling may not be the final chapter for the bomber award. Following the ruling, Boeing issued a sternly worded statement that didn’t rule out taking the Pentagon to court.

“We continue to believe that our offering represents the best solution for the Air Force and the nation, and that the government’s selection process was fundamentally and irreparably flawed,” the company said. “We will carefully review the GAO’s decision and decide upon our next steps with regard to the protest in the coming days.”

Boeing has reason to want to protest. Winning the bomber would have injected new life into  the firm’s combat aircraft business. While the company has stability — Boeing produces the Air Force’s KC-46 tanker, the Navy’s P-8 submarine-hunting plane, as well as Army helicopter projects — its two fighter jets, the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15 Eagle, could see a production freeze at the end of the decade without additional Pentagon or overseas orders. The two fighter projects “will need lifelines from U.S. and foreign sales,” Roman Schweizer, an analyst with Guggenheim, said in his own note to investors.

“For Boeing, this places more pressure on the company to secure an F/A-18 sale to Kuwait and another of F-15s to Qatar,” Callan said. “Israeli opposition in both instances may be a factor complicating these deals.”

The U.S. Navy and Australia’s military are still buying Super Hornets and Boeing has been actively pitching the warplane on the international market. Boeing also is still making new Eagles for Saudi Arabia.

The stealth bomber contract loss is less of a big deal for Boeing’s partner in the bid, Lockheed, which is expecting to see an increase in orders for its F-35 fighter in the coming years.

“We believe Lockheed Martin will continue to benefit from the F-35 ramp up, missile defense, munitions and other lines of business,” Schweizer said.

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.