• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Aerojet Rocketdyne to be Acquired by Lockheed Martin

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,675
Reaction score
1,714

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
471
Lockheed used to be in the propulsion business e.g. SRAM.

Absorbing essential propulsion stack vendors into individual primes still makes me queasy.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
339
Lockheed used to be in the propulsion business e.g. SRAM.

Absorbing essential propulsion stack vendors into individual primes still makes me queasy.
It should, LM's size is problematic even before this.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
471
Lockheed used to be in the propulsion business e.g. SRAM.

Absorbing essential propulsion stack vendors into individual primes still makes me queasy.
It should, LM's size is problematic even before this.
In my view, that's much less of an issue than the loss of an innovative, independent propulsion focused company.

The benefits from a cross-pollination of ideas by virtue of having easy interactions with multiple customers
with different technical approaches who weren't concerned that you were also a competitor can't be overstated.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
471
The WSJ had a write-up on the proposed acquisition with a link to a very recent (2018) Stanford Institute For
Economic Policy Research paper on defense consolidation and its impact on acquisition costs.

The authors' methodology shows the impact to be non-existent: "impacts on acquisition costs are statistically indistinguishable from 0."
 

Attachments

  • 18-027.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 0

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,675
Reaction score
1,714
Lockheed used to be in the propulsion business e.g. SRAM.

Absorbing essential propulsion stack vendors into individual primes still makes me queasy.

Yep. Where's that going to leave Boeing and Raytheon? I'd guess Boeing's reason for no-bidding GBSD will apply to every other missile program that requires a booster for both Boeing and Raytheon.
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
159
Reaction score
77
I have the same concerns about mergers like this. It's not even the specifics of who is getting what and why, just that competition (usually) breeds innovation and has a knock-on effect in terms of keeping companies honest (again, usually). Even the Soviets had an understanding of this by having different competitive design bureaus.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
1,583
Well, competing is nice. But with a descent budget it's better. And it's not like Space stuffs and Hypersonic come for cheap.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,478
Reaction score
690
You know, at some point the US government decided "Ma Bell" was to big and ordered it's breakup. Of course that was the 20th Century.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
58
Reaction score
89
So space is becoming more like flying, considering how many aircraft manufacturers were there during the cold war.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
1,536
So space is becoming more like flying, considering how many aircraft manufacturers were there during the cold war.
During the height of the Cold War upwards of 10% of GDP was allocated to defense spending that would equate to ~$2.2 Trillion today. You could support a lot more contractors at that level of spending.

post script - no I’m not advocating for this level of spending or making any inflation adjusted, we’re not in the Cold War argument.
 

Similar threads

Top