F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Maus92]

Pre-solicitations are not orders. They are meant to notify potential vendors of an upcoming solicitation based on agency acquisition plans. Vendors - in this case a sole source - are required to respond within a month or so with their intention to bid. Lots of other steps have to occur before a contract is let.

[LowObservable]

Lots of other steps...

Including some rather large legal hurdles, in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

Note that this is not the familiar, legally codified Multi-Year Procurement because they are doing it long before the contractor has fulfilled EMD obligations (that is, successful IOT&E of a contract-compliant aircraft). There have been a few "block buys" that were not MYPs (the Virginia SSNs, for instance) but those were not joint-service, let alone multi-national, and they have been strictly case-by-case in Congress.

[KenV]

If LM is indeed signing up for Performance Based Logistics (PBL), I wish them luck. They're going to need it. Boeing signed up for PBL on the C-17 and the first several years lost a bundle, as they expected. It took years to develop the database necessary to know which parts to purchase and stock and in what numbers to guarantee a certain level of C-17 fleet availability and during that time they lost lotsa money. But once they finally did build that database and could start making some money, the gov't changed the contract, which significantly reduced their ability to recoup their previous losses. LM's lawyers and contracts people will need to be at the top of their game if they're going to make any money on a PBL contract.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by KenV

LM's lawyers and contracts people will need to be at the top of their game...

Well, they've managed to foist the F-35A/B/C on the world so, I'm sure they're up to it!

-RP

*Sorry, I couldn't resist...*

[LowObservable]

Really, Ken?

C-17 PBL was such a rotten deal for Boeing that they raised hell when the AF wanted to take it away from them...

Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house? - 5/18/2010 - Flight Global

...had their consultants celebrate its reinstatement...

Air Force Deserves Praise For Its Decision To Renew C-17 PBL Sustainment Contract - Lexington Institute

.. and not only signed up but extended the program to every C-17 in the world.

Boeing: Boeing Awarded Contract for PBL Sustainment of C-17 Globemaster III

Really?

[KenV]

Really, Ken?.....followed by three links

Yeah really.

1. You apparently don't understand what PBL is. It's not "maintenance of the aircraft." You also apparently don't understand the C-17's history, especially it's early history. "Forty and no more" was the government's mantra in those early years.

2. The first C-17 was delivered back in 1993. That's just over 22 years ago. Boeing (then MDC) signed the first sustainment contract not much later. Your links all date to within the past 6 years or so. It was the first several years of the program that cost Boeing plenty, not the last several years. Boeing had to write off those losses, just as it wrote of the losses for building the first two dozen (or more) C-17s. It was much later that Boeing began making money.

3. From your first cited article: Under a well-structured five-year agreement, the contractor makes a small profit or loses money in the first two years. The supply chain is still not mature and investments must be made. The payoff for the contractor occurs in the last two years, when profit can exceed 20% even as the overall cost per flight hour to sustain the aircraft declines. Such profit *margins for government work can appear *excessive. In the case of the C-17 it was not "well structured" because it was a brand new concept, and it took WAY more than "two years" to "mature the supply chain." So Boeing took lots of losses. Then, when Boeing was finally in a position to make some profits, the government declared the profit margins were "excessive" even though such margins were required to compensate for the past years of operating at a loss.

[Radix]

............

[Mach Two]

Originally Posted by KenV

You apparently don't understand...

Originally Posted by KenV

You also apparently don't understand

No, he may well "understand" and your view may differ from his. Please stop with the high-handed, I know better bollocks that you seem to need to do all the time to make your opinion appear more authoritative than anyone else's.

I would expect you have some really relevant and insightful points to make here. But they will not be heard until you wind your neck in a lot.

[KenV]

No, he may well "understand" and your view may differ from his.

Maybe. Maybe not. From what he wrote, the way he wrote (including the condescending tone) and the links he provided (which are non sequiturs relative to the early PBL program), I think he does not understand PBL. Do you?

[LowObservable]

I think we were at cross purposes. I'm seeing Boeing making a load of money from GISP today. I'm not sure at what point it became profitable.

[Mach Two]

Originally Posted by KenV

I think he does not understand PBL. Do you?

I have no interest in it, frankly, KenV. Not really my department. And, as you know, that wasn't my point. I was refering only to your perceived attitude here, which would explain why you spend more time defending your posts than debating the points made therein. If others are a bit blunt in their replies to you, there may be a reason. Consider.

'Nuff said.

[Courtney Mil]

I see your point, M2, and have to concur. Hopefully, "Nuff said".

And all this C17/Boeing/Airbus stuff is great and I see the comparisons being drawn the future of F-35 sustainment, but...

[KenV]

I think we were at cross purposes.

If by "cross purposes" you mean we're talking past each other, I agree (is this a Brit vs American English problem?)

I'm seeing Boeing making a load of money from GISP today. I'm not sure at what point it became profitable.

Indeed we are. I'm part of the C-17 GISP program right now, sitting in San Antonio with a whole bunch of USAF and FMS C-17s (including the UK's) undergoing maintenance/mod. But may I politely make a few points:

1. PBL is a component of GISP. It is not GISP.

2. It took a long time to make both PBL and GISP profitable.

My point is that the EARLY years of the PBL program were not profitable. It's very hard to build the database upon which PBL is based and while that database is being built, you have to guarantee performance of the aircraft. The result is that the vendor ends up paying lots of penalties for not meeting the logistics requirements. The PBL contract must be very carefully crafted if the vendor is not going to lose his shirt in those early years. LM's lawyers and contracts folks are going to have their hands full crafting such a contract for the F-35, which appears to be much more complex than the C-17. In addition, they must support three very different versions of the F-35 being operated by three very different services. And the F-35 is going to have a bunch of foreign sales/deliveries very early in the program. Boeing had nearly a decade to sort out PBL before they delivered their first FMS C-17.

[Willard Whyte]

This thread has moved from being interesting & entertaining to boring and personal.

[O-P]

If I may be allowed to the F-35?


How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions? If it can't, they may as well leave it off the Northern European models. I imagine that a few lightning storms would cause a few wobbles too?

[KenV]

I was refering only to your perceived attitude here, which would explain why you spend more time defending your posts than debating the points made therein.

May I politely ask what my "perceived attitude" was in post #6967 when this topic began? And why that "perceived attitude" motivated a condescending reply replete with links that were non sequiturs?

I am asking this sincerely as there is obviously a problem with perception. Some of it may be due to the difference in Brit vs American English, but I perceive the problem is much broader and deeper than that.

[FODPlod]

KenV - I too am getting tired of the sneeringly condescending and abusively-worded posts directed towards you. I suspect I am not alone in remaining keen to hear your authoritative contributions despite the witch-hunting efforts of others who, seemingly lacking your background and currency, resentfully quibble everything you say and attempt to trip you up in petty fits of pique.

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level. You are as entitled to air your views as anyone else and I detest group bullying, even on the internet.

[KenV]

How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions?

I don't know, but I would venture a guess that IMC performance is similar to most other IRST since the physics are the same. That assumes NG has not come up with a clever way around the inherent limitations of the IR spectrum.

That being said the 900 to 1700 micron wavelength sees thru haze, mist and fog very well. I am not certain, but I understand that DAS's sensor spectrum includes this range.

[KenV]

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level.

Thanks for that. I'll try to better control myself in the face of "stooping detractors." ;-)

Further, I abandoned my last attempt at civility when that approach was declared "passive aggressive". I will not abandon future attempts in the face of such baiting detractors.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by FODPlod

KenV - I too am getting tired of the sneeringly condescending and abusively-worded posts directed towards you. I suspect I am not alone in remaining keen to hear your authoritative contributions despite the witch-hunting efforts of others who, seemingly lacking your background and currency, resentfully quibble everything you say and attempt to trip you up in petty fits of pique.

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level. You are as entitled to air your views as anyone else and I detest group bullying, even on the internet.

You are of course quite entitled to your opinion and are right to air it.

However when a contributor continuously posts contentious and seemingly ridiculous opinions, who is called out on them and neither has the good grace [or sheer pigheadedness, take your pick] to realise the game is up and begin to partake in a more # reasonable # direction of discussion then expect to get some grief, you call it bullying, some might say enough of the BS !!

Now considering what has been said about contributors on this thread, on another internet forum, them you may wish to revisit your opinion on

" and I detest group bullying, even on the internet"

On reflection this discussion is really quite tame [and legal].

rgds