On 14 Apr 2004 18:24:32 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

No, from the *supposed* report.

Al Minyard

Well, NO. This is from THE report. Note the osd.mil in the link Al...
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/repor...4/04064sum.pdf


Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
that the procurement should go forward.

Thanks for the link.

Al Minyard