page 3

8/11/2009 2:24:27 AM

so essentially all the monies we have already spent will net very few actual helicopters?

fucking weak ass sauce man

8/11/2009 11:26:46 AM

i hate arab13 and his backward arab ways, but his unpunctuated quote made me want to draw a cartoon with the caption "Fucking weak, Ass-sauce Man"


and it would've had a dude pissed cause there was ass sauce all over his lunch that he had just sat down to eat

someone who can draw, draw that. thx

8/11/2009 11:31:59 AM

is this going to affect your position any?

8/11/2009 11:43:05 AM

Quote :

" so essentially all the monies we have already spent will net very few actual helicopters? fucking weak ass sauce man"

actually, no. as it currently stands right now with the cancellation of the contract....

with all of the money already spent, the US ended up with 0 helocopters that they would use to fly. What they have are really expensive toys sitting a warehouse, a debt to repay for breaking contract, and through a deal worked out "unemployment" monies paid to employees that were laid off.
All in all, they probably spent just a little bit less $ cancelling than it would have cost them to keep the contract and end up with new helos.

8/11/2009 12:22:55 PM

I haven't kept up with this. did president moron cancel this project and won't take the helicopters, after already paying for at least some of them?

8/11/2009 12:26:58 PM

you should probably catch up on this...

8/11/2009 12:35:50 PM

not that it has anything directly to do with us...

but there's a BAE facility in this area. Actually, about 5 minutes away from my house. Apparently, they laid off about 200 people yesterday, citing the economy and a change in the direction of national defense.
What sucks is that when we (LM) went through our first round of lay offs, a lot of those people got positions at BAE so they could stay in the area.

8/28/2009 2:54:04 PM

Good news EMCE! (Maybe)

Quote :

"The Pentagon could launch another effort to build new presidential helicopters by next spring, the military’s top acquisition chief told reporters Monday. The prior VH-71 Marine One program was killed last spring after estimates showed its cost would double and just as the new president had identified out-of-control Pentagon spending as an area for reform. President Barack Obama joined his former campaign rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in denouncing a new fleet of presidential helicopters as an example of waste, a talking point that Defense Secretary Robert Gates also adopted. “We ended up with helicopters that cost nearly half a billion dollars each and enabled the president to, among other things, cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack,” Gates said during a speech last summer in Chicago. The quote illustrated the chief problem with the program — that the Pentagon was trying to do too much on one helicopter. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29845.html

11/23/2009 5:36:21 PM

the sad part is...


that just shows a basic misunderstanding of what the helo was...
as the requirements were written, he WOULD NOT be able to cook dinner while flying

Obama fail

11/23/2009 6:25:40 PM

GODDAMN LIBERALS TRYING TO USE MY MONEY TO COOK DINNER ON HELICOPTERS MAKES ME SO MAD ARAWRGH

11/23/2009 6:31:57 PM

[old] saw the show on it

11/23/2009 6:32:47 PM

maybe if the incompetent hacks that work at lockheed martin could stay in budget, the president could have a helicopter.

and…

Quote :

" now over budget at $11.2 billion -- will cost more than Air Force One. The project is being directed from Lockheed's Owego plant, which hired hundreds of new staff members to gear up for the project four years ago."

The LHC came in at $9 billion, is now fully operational, and is a 17 mile long liquid helium cooled super-conducting ring that can energize protons to 7,000,000,000,000 electron volts… what are they doing with that $11.2 billion?

11/23/2009 6:46:30 PM

... you can't be serious

11/23/2009 6:47:49 PM

I’m pretty sure i could build the president 27 posh new helicopters for about 2 billion. They built an airplane on mythbusters one time out of junk yard scraps, it can’t be that hard.

11/23/2009 7:01:31 PM

It isn't L-M that is driving the cost, at least not entirely, it is the multitude of add-on components that the DoD program managers keep sending that drive the cost up. Lockheed Martin certainly shares some of the blame, but there is more than enough to go around. Frankly, the DoD procurement program is pretty busted all around.


Encouraging for health care, no?

11/23/2009 7:10:47 PM

ahaha, there's a certain point where you read something that someone says on TWW, and instantly want to grab a brick and smack them in the face a few times...

it's at this point when you know you're being trolled.


not responding to it yo...

11/23/2009 7:14:22 PM

Yeah, just take a few deep breaths and let it ride EMCE.

Fool doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM. Reason : liquorhol]

11/23/2009 7:18:05 PM

the cost private companies charge the gov. for what are minor change-orders is a racket anyway. I don’t see how L-M bilking the tax payers is not L-M’s fault.

11/23/2009 7:18:58 PM

damn, but now I'm interested in knowing...

how exactly is a contractor responsible for what the government decides to pay for something? Furthermore, how is it the contractor's fault for passing this cost (that the government agreed to pay) onto the taxpayer? Like... it's a free market and all, correct?

11/23/2009 7:21:48 PM

I’ve never seen a private contractor bid market rate for a gov. contract, it’s always higher than what they would bid for a private sector contract.

It’s like the person who made that “I Am Rich” iPhone application that was nothing but a picture of a jewel and costed $10,000 . Sure the people who bought it are suckers, but they knew what they were getting in to. That doesn’t mean that the person who created it isn’t at least a little unscrupulous.

11/23/2009 7:33:53 PM

...just as I thought.... a know- nothing troll talking out of his ass.

come back later when you have a clue what you're talking about.

11/23/2009 9:20:56 PM

lots of misunderstanding, misinformation and ignorance of how defense acquisition works ITT.

from both sides.

11/23/2009 10:17:47 PM

haha poor lockheed-martin, life must be sooo tough for them, right?

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 12:10:03 AM

Welp, we built to requirements under contract of an agreed upon price. Customer wanted more... wanted to change requirements (scope creep), but for some odd reason didn't expect it to cost more. In retrospect, I personally don't think we should have had so many yes men eager to accomodate the customer changing requirements. And it surely didn't help that this all happened when people were starting to realize exactly how costly and screwed up the acquisition process is.



Jcashfan, yeah there is a lot of talk about 'the son of vh'. The process will start all over again, as all of the rotory wing manufacturers will start bidding again. I hope that we win

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 7:07 AM. Reason : l]

11/24/2009 7:02:44 AM

thats the gubment for ya

11/24/2009 8:52:02 AM

I am not really sure you know what "creep" means in this context - just an observation.

11/24/2009 9:18:12 AM

^^^ Yeah, well, I'm a bit biased towards Sikorsky. I've got a Calvin pissing on a Lockheed Martin and a Bell Textron logo on the back of my truck
















(no, not really)

11/24/2009 9:29:56 AM

Consider scope to be the realm covered by the requirements. This is somewhat defined by the mission that is to be performed. In this context, scope creep means that your requirements "creep", slide, or shift over time...


This happens very easily considering how fast technology evolves these days. Now, you sign a contract for the latest and greatest stuff... but over the course of a few years, better things are developed. Then scope creep happens. Now the buyer wants the newer technology instead of what they paid for. Requirements then shift or creep...

11/24/2009 9:32:11 AM

thats a change order

11/24/2009 9:41:11 AM

...

11/24/2009 11:10:42 AM

change order creep

11/24/2009 1:58:25 PM

jargon aside, the point remains that it's supposed to be relatively hard to change requirements after a contract has been agreed upon. If requirements aren't set in stone, you can imagine how difficult it may be to meet said requirements.
It just a shame that the program managers at LM were JUST starting to get this scope creep under control when the contract was cancelled.

Having said that, if there is a son of VH to be built, I would be very surprised if our previous progress is completely overlooked when deciding on which contractor will carry on this project. LM might not be the prime, as they were before. But I would be surprised if the government started at square one with a brand new prime contractor.

11/24/2009 3:45:08 PM

I honestly don't begrudge Obama a new helicopter. If he truly needs one, he should have it.

But I seem to recall that Obama said he didn't want one, right? Furthermore, Obama, Pelosi, and other members of Congress shouldn't be criticizing CEOs' corporate jets when they are requesting taxpayer money for new helicopters and jets.

11/24/2009 4:40:52 PM

yeah, that quote is the first post of this thread.

I honestly believe that when Obama said that he didn't need a new helo. fleet, he was speaking out of ignorance.
-I think he was ignorant of the capabilities of his current fleet
-I think he was ignorant of the intended use of the fleet (1. True, it's used for him. It's also used for other members of congress, his cabinet, etc... and 2. True, he would get to use these helos. for part of his term. But the fleet would also be used for probably the next 20 years)
-I think he was ignorant of the system that he would be getting



this is the part that really gets to me:

Quote :

"The new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. -- now over budget at $11.2 billion -- will cost more than Air Force One."

I mean, geez man... that's a fairly ignorant statement if not only for the fact that Air Force One platform was built a LOOOOOOONG time ago. Technology improves. Costs go up. Goddamn, how much did it take someone to fill up their gas tank that long ago? Probably under $15.
That's like me having to replace my phone, and saying "man, 10 years ago, my top of the line phone only cost me $50! Why in the hell is this brand new PDA phone $299.99?!"

11/24/2009 4:54:46 PM

very true

11/25/2009 9:24:33 PM

for anyone that might have been following:

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20091211/BUSINESS/912110354/Funding-deal-expected-to-save-250-to-300-Lockheed-jobs

partial win here. we'll see...

12/12/2009 11:23:23 AM

emce told me he's working on a top-secret project:

the stealth roflcopter

12/12/2009 11:26:16 AM

Quote :

"That's like me having to replace my phone, and saying "man, 10 years ago, my top of the line phone only cost me $50! Why in the hell is this brand new PDA phone $299.99?!" "

The unsubsidized cost of new cellphones have been about the same, probably even dropping over time. The starTAC was $1000 when it was first released, an unsubsidized iPhone is either $800 or $600 which is substantially cheaper when adjusted for inflation.

Technology for the most part makes things cheaper.

12/12/2009 12:29:36 PM

...and it looks like there might be some life left in the program after all:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c7d2574d-f2ea-4ee8-9a81-c4bda261a7f1

LM is going to be partnering with Sikorsky for a new bid. New platform (which I won't mention) though...

4/19/2010 6:46:42 PM

get me a job yo

4/19/2010 6:48:06 PM

Man, we go through our 3rd round of layoffs tomorrow. It would take an act of God for us to hire anyone new right now... at least for the next few months.
As you might imagine, it would look terrible for the company if they cut jobs, not because the employees were doing a bad job, but because they didn't have enough work to sustain them.... and then they turned around and hired someone new.

4/19/2010 6:56:25 PM