funny how you make it sound like she didn’t do anything at all

people don’t go to jail for nothing

(at least people who can afford good lawyers)

I do not such thing.

It was Druyun & Sears who engaged in misconduct, were fired by Boeing, prosecuted (with the FULL cooperation of Boeing) & went to jail for that misconduct. And it was discovered that Druyun had a long history of misconduct/abuse of her position & NOT just with Boeing contract either.

Again, It was Druyun & Sears which engaged in misconduct. Not Boeing misconduct & not USAF/DOD misconduct. Also note that BOTH Druyun’s & Sears’ bosses resigned for their lack of proper/adequite supervision which SHOULD have caught the misconduct much earlier. But EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have put forth the outright false premis that it was Boeing misconduct.

And that OTHER outright false premis EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have put forth is that it was the misconduct which is why the tanker lease was cancelled. The TRUTH is that the misconduct, discovered & reveiled BY BOEING, only lead to a full investigation of the program which found ‘mistakes’ that the USAF/DOD had made (NONE of which involed the Druyun/Sears situation) and it was those mistakes by the USAF/DOD which caused the contract to be cancelled.

Last but not least EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers ignor that the contract had been reworked & renegotiated AFTER Druyun had left the USAF.

aka the Air Force

Nope, two separate entities.

RFP was written by Boeing purposely to exclude the KC-30
RFP2 favored KC-30
RFP3 was modified extensively to favor KC-767 after the AF realized that a KC-30 was never going to ‘fly’

RFP1: USAF had already all but selected the 767 (having been working on its KC-135 replacement since 1996) BUT realized that with the unfortunate events of 9/11/01 the USAF/DOD had the opportunity to accelerate its recapitalization plans. As part of that the USAF/DOD ASKED BOEING to write up the specification for what it could deliver ASAP (6 years earlier than the previous plan) for a ‘jump-start’ 100 tanker lease to replace the KC-135E. It was to deliver a basic core tanker to replace the KC-135Es ASAP while the full spec/capability 767 was developed to replace the KC-135R. THE ONLY THING THE REWRITE WAS TO DO WAS TO HASTEN THE PROCESS!

RFP2: Did not favor the KC-30. In fact, based on the criteria of the RFP it is pretty clear that the KC-767AT was the better fit for the requirements/criteria. The the offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective. So all this BS about ‘extra’ credit for extra capacity/capability is bunk.

RFP3: Key requirements essentially the same as RFP2. The one key change being a greater emphasis on cost which if the KC-30 were truly less costly as the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid says then it SHOULD favor the KC-30.

It did indicate just such a desire in version 2

It did no such thing. The RFP clearly expressed that there was no ‘extra’ credit for extra capacity/capability.

that you can’t accept that fact isn’t my problem

YOU are the one with a problem accepting facts.

removing most extra credit for extra capability so it comes down to a price shootout

Again, there was no ‘extra’ credit for extra capacity/capability in the round 2 RFP.

which was the airforce, exactly

Nope, two separate entities.

It is less expensive to buy, but it burns more fuel per hour.

If that were true then why is NG/EADS not tickled to death that the new solicitation is a slam dunk for them to win?

Nevermind that the airforce refuses to consider that the KC-30 won’t need to be in the air as many hours to accomplish the same task . . .

Quite the opposite, the KC-30 will need to be in the air MORE hours because you can not operate them from as many airfields OR operate as many from each airfields as the 767 thus FORCING you to utilize airfields from farther away increasing the hours flying too & from the refueling points.

not when it doesn’t correctly account for the extra capabilities of the KC-30 when trying to determine fuel efficiency

You are confusing extra capacity with real world capability.

the GAO DENIED just this claim, get over it

The GOA found that the SSAC and SSA did provide evidence that it considered insights and observations in the IFARA evaluation.

you must really love living in denial land

I am not the one living in denial land.

but KC-X isn’t based on the 400ER now is it? Notice i specifically made the point that SINCE KC-767 ISN’T FRANKENTANKER (which would have had the 400ER cockpit) it will have a less advanced cockpit

Whatever variant of the 767 Boeing offers in round 3 will more than likely utilize the -400ER cockpit.

But you & I both know that you are just trying to dance around the truth.

denying the obvious truth doesn’t win you any converts my friend

You are the one denying the truth, not me.

more completely made up imaginary ‘facts’ from your friend pfcem

Not made up imaginary ‘facts’, historical record.

Errrr.. LOL – You did…:D

No I didn’t. And your BS out of context quoting of me just proves further your disengenousness.

Subsequently less than a month later we saw the JET estimations were, if anything, optimistic.:D

No we didn’t. The program is ~6 months behind schedule, not 2 years. The BS JET estimations were IF the problems that caused the previous delays continued & were added on to with further POSSIBLE issues. As we know (but ignoranus naysayers like you ignor) the primary issues that caused the previous delays were with production & have been addressed.

So Typical made up complete BS huh!!! – Well if they were “expected” why has the scheduled repeatedly changed?. Surely an “expected” delay would have been factored into the schedule, are you accusing LM of lying or incompetance?.

More disengenous BS. That delays & cost overruns will happen IS to be expected & the rule rather than the exception for such programs. It sure WOULD be nice if Congress wasn’t tighted assed with funds that such delays & cause overruns COULD be factored in ahead of time.

Come on admit it.. how many schedules has the JSF had… I lost count after three… and even the latest schedule is behind and thats only a few months old, I wager theres more rescheduling to be done for those “NOR unexpected” problems.

None of which is ANY evidence that the program WILL suffer ANOTHER 2 YEARS of delay & associated cost overruns.

The JSF program manager is sacked, and you assert that there’s nothing going on!!.:rolleyes:

I NEVER asserted that there’s nothing going on.

Errr… LOL – well actuall you have said exactly that :-

Truth hurts doesn’t it. Unlike you I realize the difference between developement & production.

Here’s the real story, and I bet he’s in a better position to comment than you.

I think that neatly sums up the present situation, and the funny thing is, I find it hard to reconcile to your rosie view..

Cheers

LOL.

Sorry irtusk, but there are some things I just can not let slide.

This is just plain untrue, but you can tell yourself this if it makes you feel smarter. Politically, there was actually more support for the original Northrop Grumman proposal, back when the Republicans held more sway in the government. It would have been manufactured in more states, which also equates to more political support.

The whole “US will never buy European” argument doesn’t hold water. Otherwise Eurocopter never would have beaten MD Helicopters and AgustaWestland never would have beaten Sikorsky in those recent competitions.

This was a Northrop Grumman vs Boeing showdown in which the Republican politicians and the USAF leaders at the time (2006-07) favored Northrop Grumman. Unfortunately, the USAF botched the competition mightily, giving Boeing the excuse it needed to protest and the GAO upheld it. The GAO is actually less political than most agencies in D.C., and the issues with the competition were valid.

This had been a Boeing vs Northrop Grumman battle royale. Boeing was top-dog in 2002-03, but NG held more sway 06-07. With the Democrats in power, the old USAF leaders fired, and Murtha (pro-split buy) now dead, the pendulum has swung back to Boeing and I think that the USAF has seen that as the safest option and has drafter the RFP accordingly. Now that Dicks is in line to replace Murtha, Boeing will probably get this and any attempt to overturn the decision will be seen as “unpatriotic”. Right or wrong, this is probably the best for the USAF.

“With one more dollar, I would buy the ink that would fill the pen that would write the law that would make it illegal to protest the next tanker competition.” — Gen. Donald Hoffman, Air Force Materiel Command chief

Cheers,

Logan

Some corrections…

It is NG/EADS, NOT Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman is the systems integrator, basically integrating US systems to an EADS tanker.

The USAF has ALWAYS preferred the 767.
Round 1: The Airbus/EADS KC-330 was rejected for no meeting the requirements.
Round 2: NG/EADS knew they could not win & threatened on several occations to pull out of the Congress mandated competition unless changes to the RFP were made that would ‘make’ the KC-30 competative. As an example, IFARA was not even a part of the early draft RFP but was a concession added to satisfy NG/EADS (which HAD to have the model data altered in order for the KC-30 to even complete the evaluation missions). The offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.
Round 3: The key requirements are nearly identical to those of round 2 but (according the KC-30/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers) those same requirements now favor the 767. What I find PARTICULARLY immusing is how in rounds 1 & 2 EADS said that it could undercut Boeing on price, suddenly in round 3 more falue being put on cost somehow favors Being THIS time (I suspect that this is because EADS knows that with the WTO ruling against them they will no longer be able to the A330 at the artificially low cost it did in rounds 1 & 2).

I could go on & on & on but basically it is clear from the RFP from ALL THREE ROUNDS that the 767 is preferred & that it is only by not assessing the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation durinmg round 2 that the KC-30 could be ‘selected’ to satisfy all the political pressure not to give the contract to Boeing again.

***

the problem is that, if you followed what happened, boeing won the contract initially (before there even was a competition), than, senator McCain un veiled a bribery offence from boeing and the competition was organized.

BS. There WAS a competition in the 1st round but it was SO CLEAR that the A330 was the wrong tanker that it was rejected. The USAF had been working on its KC-135E replacement (which is what the tanker lease was) since 1996…

McCain didn’t unveil anything. In fact McCain’s concern was with the cost MOST IMPORTANTLY that the later batches of tankers to be procurred not be at the higher lease cost. It was in fact Boeing which unveiled the Sears/Druyun misconduct.

then, the USAF (the guys who are supposed to use the thing) preferred the NG/EADS proposal, yet, boeing contested the decision and won on the argument that the proposed aircraft was bigger than his own and that it wasn’t fair to take it in consideration since it had bigger payload, etc… the fact that those who are supposed to use it have chosen it visibly had no importance, and another “competition” was to take place… except that the terms are clearly favoring boeing.

The USAF NEVER preffered the A330. [see above]

In the end, it’s not about “USA vs the rest of the world” or “which aircraft is the best” or “fits the best service’s needs”, but which lobby will be able to win… and for now, boeing lobbyists seem to have the upper hand.

And there in lies THE issue. If politicts were not such an overriding factor we would have new tankers already.

***

Boeing wasn’t ticked the USAF wanted a bigger plane, it was ticked because the USAF hadn’t stated that preference in the competition, or else they might have offered the KC-777. If size had been a major positive factor in the competition, the USAF would have stood a far better chance at getting away with it.

No, ‘Boeing was ticked’ because Beoing SPECIFICALLY ASKED the USAF if it wanted a larger tanker such as its 777 but it was told no AND because the ‘selection’ of the KC-30 was not made in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.

The terms of the first competition favored Boeing, too. The fact that the KC-30 won it wasn’t a result of the KC-30 being so much better. Better or not, the RFP favored the KC-767. The KC-30 won it because the USAF didn’t follow the scoring process it established. The only way to win a game that’s rigged against you is to cheat. That’s what happened, but in a game this closely monitored, the USAF was caught. A game it wrote the rules for…

In no uncertain terms, the USAF screwed itself.

Again, ALL THREE RFPs ‘favored’ the 767 because the 767 is MUCH CLOSER to what the USAF wants/need. And don’t confuse the KC-X Source Selection Team with the USAF.

Sounds like voodoo to me. Until there is some evidence supported by other sources, I rather stick to the new document from 2008 as it is the most present source there is up to date.

Yes it WOULD take some POWERFUL voodoo for POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35s to weigh EXACTLY THE SAME (or more) than they did PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION.

***

No, they are as old or new as their latest confirmation, which would be May 2009, September 2008–and ongoing on Lockheed-Martin’s site.

No, they are the EXACT SAME NUMBERS which appear in documents from 2004-2006.

Afn the ‘Lockheed-Martin’s site’ give totally different & astronimically impossible numbers.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2784.html makes it sound like the figures given are design targets, not actual item weights. What if the weight reduction measures were put in place for the plane to hit its design target and get within KPP bounds, instead of being below design target already and spending a lot of resources to get even lower?

No, it shows the projected weights of the designs.

So you have this one single source?

No. I have seen MANY program documents & from ~2004 thru 2009 the ONLY weight numbers I can recall seeing are the 29,036/32,161/32,072 & 26,664/29,695/29,996.

Yes, indeed. Just the man who used the higher numbers in 2008 again. And his 2008 figures trump his 2007 figures. Perhaps the program floated the idea of lower weight targets for a while between 2006 and 2007, but has gone back to the old target from 2008 on?

Not ‘just a man’. THE MAN.

And THE EXAXT SAME NUMBERS that appear in 2004-2006 suddenly ‘reapearing’ in 2008 after the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers were given in 2007 does not mean the trup the 2007 numbers. It IS an indication that who ever updated the PDF files for the 2008 program briefings appears to have screwed up & created them by ‘updating’ fro the OLDER 2006 files rather than the NEWER 2007 files.

Inconclusive at best. Perhaps they stuck with the lower fuel capacity due to changes and have gone up with the weight due to other components again? Cpt. Martins’ program update presentation contains no weight figures. Why is that?

So they spent 2 years + $6.2 billion on WEIGHT REDUCTION only to reduce the fuel capcity but have the aircraft weight end up EXACTLY THE SAME. :rolleyes:

The POINT was that the 2007 Davis briefing documents are NOT the only ones that use those numbers.

No, you haven’t explained anything a single time, but have been regurgitating your standpoint repeatedly. And simple repetition does not make it more convincing all by itself.
My theory is that the weight reduction measures were there to hit the 2006 DESIGN TARGETS. To make the plane reach its specification. Perhaps, for a while, they thought of being able to go even lower, but have retracted shortly afterwards and stuck to the previous DESIGN TARGET again since 2008.

No, the 2006 weight projections were the ones that were ‘overweight’ & needed to be reduced in order for the F-35B to meet performance requirments. As I posted before, to believe otherwise would mean yoiu would have to believe that F-35 was IN 2004 ~3,000 lbs heavier than that & THAT would mean that in a SINGLE YEAR (2003-2004) the F-35 somehow gained ~4500 lbs on average between all three variants.

NOBODY has yet to provide a shred* of evidence that the 2004-2006 numbers are not the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers &/or that the 2007 numbers are not the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers.

And FURTHER evidence is found with the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION AA-1. It weighs ~29,000 lbs. 🙂

* I meant thread of of evidence. Meaning a progression of evidence of what the weights are/were if not those I have shown them to be.

ONE MORE TIME

Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were…
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs

After weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS…
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs

Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).

So it is time for LM to give the present data about that.
The first weight reduced F-35A, the F-35AF-1 had its roll-out in 2009. But the F-35B examples did show during test-flights, that some weight reducing items could not be kept and will bring a weight rise again.

Nothing strange in general, when the F-4 did start the series production at ~28.000 lb and did rise to ~30.000 lb after some years.

So it is important to learn if the F-35A will start its production run as close as possible to the new specification set. Non does speak about the much lower first specifications for years.

I have see NO statement that the WEIGHT REDUCTION efforts were for not & that the F-35 is now as heavy (or heavier) than it was PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION. Quite the opposite, the statements have been that the WEIGHT REDUCTION efforts were a success, that the weights HAVE been reduced AND that weight is no longer an issue. In fact SWAT has stated that it has identified FURTHER weight reductions that were not done but COULD be done.

Where did “F-35B examples did show during test-flights, that some weight reducing items could not be kept and will bring a weight rise again“? The F-35 program has factored in weight increases throughout its life. But the Block 3 IOC F-35 is NOT as heavy as the naysayers want others to believe.