F-35 program updates

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 01:06

quicksilver wrote:Chris Bogdan = cordial.

I guess the internet service on Mars has been intermittent for a few years, eh?

Bogdan only took over in 2012. But really what is the point being made?

The contention being made by some other people is that the head of the JPO would benefit from being nicer to the contractor. Rather than picking on irrelevant twisted details, it would be more productive to identify whether the issues were better tackled when people aren't so "cordial" are in charge or prior to that.

As to costs, its easy to obfuscate with high sounding program names or contract terms that most people won't understand. But the fear for those people is that when one drills down to the simple issue highlighted as the justification for the pause, they can't really justify it.

There is a repair to be made. The cost of the repair has to be borne by either the taxpayer or the LM shareholder. Arguing that the JPO should be nice and get the taxpayer to foot the bill, really doesn't cut it. LM's profits of course won't be hit if they don't foot the bill.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 02:56

weasel1962 wrote:Bogdan only took over in 2012. But really what is the point being made?

The contention being made by some other people is that the head of the JPO would benefit from being nicer to the contractor. Rather than picking on irrelevant twisted details, it would be more productive to identify whether the issues were better tackled when people aren't so "cordial" are in charge or prior to that.

As to costs, its easy to obfuscate with high sounding program names or contract terms that most people won't understand. But the fear for those people is that when one drills down to the simple issue highlighted as the justification for the pause, they can't really justify it.

There is a repair to be made. The cost of the repair has to be borne by either the taxpayer or the LM shareholder. Arguing that the JPO should be nice and get the taxpayer to foot the bill, really doesn't cut it. LM's profits of course won't be hit if they don't foot the bill.

Some people have been shown (repeatedly) not to understand defense contracting.
Yet some people claim it's a simple matter.

Can some people simply tell us when and under what terms the "quality escape" clause was added to the LRIP contracts?

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 03:30

If a quality escape clause exists, and LM is on the hook for the repair costs, then why is there a disagreement?

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -lockheed/

That's simply because in prior year contracts, such a contract term never existed which is why it was recommended as a contract modification in 2013 for all future contracts. So the JPO should roll over and just bite the bullet?

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 03:42

weasel1962 wrote:If a quality escape clause exists, and LM is on the hook for the repair costs, then why is there a disagreement?

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -lockheed/

That's simply because in prior year contracts, such a contract term never existed which is why it was recommended as a contract modification in 2013 for all future contracts. So the JPO should roll over and just bite the bullet?

When was it actually adopted and what are the terms?

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 03:45

lol. Some people don't know the terms and yet have the balls to blame the DoD.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 03:58

weasel1962 wrote:lol. Some people don't know the terms and yet have the balls to blame the DoD.

But it's a simple matter so surely some people can easily leap to DoD's defense with some actual details.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 04:06

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:lol. Some people don't know the terms and yet have the balls to blame the DoD.

But it's a simple matter so surely some people can easily leap to DoD's defense with some actual details.

Not sure why I need to re-type. That's simply because in prior year contracts, such a contract term never existed which is why it was recommended as a contract modification in 2013 for all future contracts.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 04:17

Unfortunately I need to re-type: when was it adopted and what were the terms?

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 04:23

marauder2048 wrote:Unfortunately I need to re-type: when was it adopted and what were the terms?

That you didn't need to re-type because I don't intend nor need to answer irrelevant questions that try to detract from the issue.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 04:40

weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Unfortunately I need to re-type: when was it adopted and what were the terms?

That you didn't need to re-type because I don't intend nor need to answer irrelevant questions that try to detract from the issue.

That must be the simple view that contractual details are irrelevant to a contractual issue.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 04:43

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Unfortunately I need to re-type: when was it adopted and what were the terms?

That you didn't need to re-type because I don't intend nor need to answer irrelevant questions that try to detract from the issue.

That must be the simple view that contractual details are irrelevant to a contractual issue.

Slight correction: The simple view is that post contractual details are irrelevant to a contractual issue.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 05:08

Except the claimed post-contractual details here would become a highly relevant
intra-contractual issue for the sustainment and support contracts. But keep simplifying.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 05:46

Last I recall F-35s were procured under contracts from 2007 onwards. Since the repair bills refer to the jets delivered since then, I would assume past year contracts are applicable, rather than current. Having said that, its amazing what we can learn from the "experts" nowadays...

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 13 Apr 2018, 06:39

weasel1962 wrote:Last I recall F-35s were procured under contracts from 2007 onwards. Since the repair bills refer to the jets delivered since then, I would assume past year contracts are applicable, rather than current. Having said that, its amazing what we can learn from the "experts" nowadays...

And what were the applicable, detailed terms (if any) in past year contracts to cover quality escapes?

I'm glad you got learned but It doesn't take an "expert" to know to weigh contractual details over
simple recall, assumption and inference.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Apr 2018, 06:58

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Last I recall F-35s were procured under contracts from 2007 onwards. Since the repair bills refer to the jets delivered since then, I would assume past year contracts are applicable, rather than current. Having said that, its amazing what we can learn from the "experts" nowadays...

And what were the applicable, detailed terms (if any) in past year contracts to cover quality escapes?

I'm glad you got learned but It doesn't take an "expert" to know to weigh contractual details over
simple recall, assumption and inference.

For the 3rd time, that's simply because in prior year contracts, such a contract term never existed which is why it was recommended as a contract modification in 2013 for all future contracts.

Do you need me to translate into any other language because that's the 3rd time you're asking the same thing.

Also, not sure what your position is right now since its been changing since the 1st post. Are you claiming now that the sustainment contract actually covers the repairs?