On Mar 26, 12:25*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Defense procurement certainly is stupid, but what I said is correct, and
documented. What you've said about Lockheed Martin's contracting is stupid,
and incorrect.

--
Ed Huntress

I prefer to think that you, someone who studied the defense
procurement for a good six months, do not have a clue. The defense
contractors compete on many levels. Buying weapons systems is
somewhat like buying a car. Most all cars will take 4 people down the
road at 60 mph. But there is a difference between buying a Ford and
buying a BMW or Mercedes. Some will perform better than the required
minimum. Some are easier to maintain. Some will last longer than
others. Buying a weapons system is not like buying bolts where every
ones product is essentially fungible. The military contract
specifications provide a minimum requirement.


Take a look at the thread on the C-130.

Boeing designed a cargo plane that out performed the current Lockheed
cargo plane in almost every category. However the Lockheed plane
could be loaded and unloaded much faster than the Boeing plane. So
while the Boeing plane could fly faster and carry more, the Lockheed
plane could make two trips for every one trip the Boeing plane could
make and land on unimproved airfields closer to where the supplies
were needed.

Dan