The BAMS story I never wrote …

I started covering the US Navy’s off-again/on-again Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program about five years ago. It’s been back on for two years and — last I checked — poised for a contract selection decision in five days.

This makes me sad. Why? Because I just thought of an obvious angle for a BAMS story that I’ve missed somehow for the last five years!

For posterity’s sake, I’ll tell you about it.

If I had the chance to re-interview all of the competitors and USN program officials, here’s the first question I would ask: Why is this a winner take-all award instead of a split-buy?

The competitors for BAMs are the Northrop Grumman RQ-4N Global Hawk (high-altitude, turbofan, active electronically scanned arrays), Lockheed Martin/General Atomics Mariner (medium-altitude, turboprop, mechanically scanned arrays) and Boeing/Gulfstream G-550 (high-altitude, turbofan, optionally manned, multiple active arrays).

Each product is basically an off-the-shelf platform modified to meet the USN’s requirement. The USN is not paying to design a new aircraft. It’s essentially buying a la cart. That’s probably why each platform offers vastly different operational strengths and weaknesses.

This competition isn’t a choice between two discreetly differerent rivals, like the YF-22 versus the YF-23. This is more like the YF-22 versus the B-1. Each platform is a completely different capability, but both are useful for their intended purpose.

I agree there are downsides to a split buy award: the upfront costs are higher than a winner-takes-all award, you lose some of the marginal benefits of commonality and training gets more complicated.

But there are other advantages. The USN would not be beholden to one contractor for BAMS for the next two or three decades, but could keep playing the two teams off each other over the life of the program. Instead of a narrowly focused solution, the USN’s operators could employ the platform that makes the most sense for each mission.

Not to mention the fact that Congress tends to like split buys, as it spreads the jobs more broadly and subjects the defense industry to greater competition.

I’m not saying a split-buy is the best answer for BAMS, but rather that it’s an imporant and seemingly logical question that I should have asked long before now.

But tell me what you think about it.

(Full disclosure: my wife works for Lockheed.)


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

2 Responses to The BAMS story I never wrote …

  1. Paul Richfield 11 February, 2008 at 3:35 pm #


    What’s your take on the first round of EPX contract awards, and their possible implications for BAMS?



  2. Alex 12 February, 2008 at 8:56 pm #

    Is anyone really seriously thinking that the Navy is going to go with anything besides a EP-8? I’ve read the questions from industry day, and that was the main comment from all the non-Boeing folks — “why should we bother”?

Leave a Reply