Banner - Spangenberg Oral History

 

 

Home button
 


Biography
 


Oral History
 


Exhibits
 


Photos
 


Help page

Exhibit A - 6. A retype of a letter to Russ Light at Boeing concerning the acquisition process.


5 May 1978



Dear Russ,


As I told you on Tuesday, I brought your 5 February letter to Seattle with me to answer in all my spare time. As usual, I had none, so will write this in spells, while awaiting a pick up for dinner, on my way home, and probably after I get there.


I was surprised at the length of your letter, and to some degree, the type of response my letter to Grafton had evoked (or provoked) from you. The bitterness on the military acquisition process was somewhat apparent, to say the least. As you know, I have long sympathized with your feelings on what I believed to be unfair competitions. My gripe against all you good guys is that you didn't raise enough rumpus when you were treated unfairly. There were a few cases when I personally raised more hell than the contractors who were shafted. Did you ever see my pitch on the Navy record? I rate our performance at 98% on the honesty scale over a 30 + year period for airplane competitions run by the Navy and decided by the Navy. I honestly think the winners won in all our competitions except:

  1. XPBB-1 - Vought Sikorsky won the competition, but Boeing got the contract. However, it was "honest" since Vought Sikorsky was announced as winner, paid for their design, and their program was negotiated with your outfit. Later, the whole deal was cancelled and the plant (Renton) traded to Air Corps for some B-24s or something. In the long run, Boeing was probably better off with Renton. (Note I start off with the only case I know of where Boeing got the better end of the stick.).


  2. E-2 (then W2F) - This competition was won by Vought, and reversed within BuAer by "industrial statesmanship" -- Grumman needed production work -- a problem not solved by giving them this one. I protested in writing to Chief, BuAer, and was told to withdraw my memo -- I refused, but others gathered up all the copies. Vought was aware of the situation, but refused to protest officially. They should have.


  3. X-22 -- Douglas won the competition, against Bell in follow-up to the "Tri Service Transport" Competition, which we, the Navy ran, but tried unsuccessfully to get killed. Navy got released from participation in the "TST", but ran the ½ scale research program for the twin tanden ducted fan. As I said, Douglas (El Segundo) won, but Navy got overruled by our friends, Brown and Gilpatric. Douglas refused to protest -- one of my memos on TFX competition got leaked to Congressional staffers -- it included reference to X-22, and a Senate Armed Services Committee investigation followed. Didn't help the loser, Douglas, but it did clear the atmosphere.



That was the record until the early 70s -- I excluded TFX because that was Air Force management and in any event Navy actions were honest. Now to comment on your various exercises of frustration:

  1. VTOL (A). I thoroughly agree that Harrier procurement was ill-advised -- I would not have done it. As you know (I guess) procurement was never recommended by the NAVAIR (BuAer, BuWeps) "technical community". Have my doubts that program to date has done much for McDonnell. AV-8B and later mods might. I really think industry should bitch on this type of government procurement but they don't -- (afraid to offend the customer) --


  2. On XFV-12A procurement, I could have used a lot more help than I got. Procurement competition was handled by CNM (Tom Davies). -- NAVAIR fought hard against "Ground Hugger I", but we lost again.


  3. On the current Navy V/STOL program contractors will all, except McD/D, tell you privately that the Navy is out of its mind, but everyone continues to offer support and bid actively. There is no way, the program, in toto, can be justified.


  4. Boeing ASW -- I thought your efforts were worthwhile, and should have been rewarded. Neither the contractors nor the Navy did an adequate job of defending the "requirement", the size of the Pacific Ocean areas certainly made such a defense possible. Eventually, greater capability will be required -- Don't give up, completely --


  5. C-5 -- From the record (Congressional hearings) Boeing should have protested officially. Wonder what would have happened -- Maybe Kelly Johnson would have built a 747.


  6. LWF -- Can't sympathize with you on F-16 -- Industry should have told DDR&E they were nuts before the "prototype" program got implemented. Boeing should have protested when Northrop got #2 award. Industry should have protested when the technology prototypes turned into a production program. I bitched more than Boeing did.


  7. UTTAS -- From what I've heard, Vertol lost the "fly off" to Sikorsky. I wouldn't have done the dual fly off, but would have picked 1 winner from the initial competition.


  8. LAMPS -- If Vertol didn't know they couldn't win this one after Sikorsky was selected for UTTAS, they deserved to lose. If they had any good sense, they would have bid an improved H-46.


  9. ATCA -- Agree you shouldn't have bid when RFP rules showed you couldn't win.


  10. Can't really figure out how to end this letter -- All of us good guys agree we should have honest competitions for worthwhile end items. I'll do what I can toward that end, as I have in the past.


 

Highest regards --

 

George