The Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker team has posted a new Web site to fight back against Boeing protests. The “America’s New Tanker” site has a near daily scrape of pro-NorGrum coverage that tries to paint a picture of a done deal (which is may very well be).
Here’s the latest:
Reuters this morning, citing Air Force documents, is refuting one of Boeing’s major false statements about Northrop Grummans win of an Air Force contract to construct Americas next generation of aerial refueling tankers.
According to Reuters, Air Force documents and interviews with Northrop Grumman officials make clear that the Northrop Grumman KC-45A can refuel the V-22 Osprey operated by the Marine Corps. In its challenge to the Government Accountability Office, Boeing claims, among other things that one of the shortcomings of Northrop Grumman’s win is that it cannot refuel the V-22.
Reuters writes that Air Force documents show that Air Force officials chose Northrop Grumman in part because “Northrop Grumman’s aircraft was better suited for refueling tilt-rotor aircraft” like the V-22.
And Reuters also quotes Northrop Grumman director of business development Marc Lindsley as saying Boeing’s claim is false, and that the V-22 can be refueled by the KC-45A.
Additionally, Northrop Grumman has already built, flown and tested its refueling tanker, while Boeing has only conceptual plans; it has yet to construct even one such aircraft. Reuters reports that the Air Force assigned a higher risk to the Boeing proposal because it is so far behind Northrop Grumman in aircraft development.
What Others Are Saying:
On Sunday, the Tacoma News Tribune published an editorial urging Boeing to respect the Government Accountability Offices review of its appeal of Northrop Grumman’s win.
Calling the GAO “the right umpire” to resolve the dispute, the News Tribune said “The company’s political allies…should agree to abide by the GAO’s respected judgment.”
“Their refusal to do so would make it all too clear that the protests are all about protectionism.”
“Real patriotism argues for giving the (U.S.) military the best equipment possible,” the newspaper said. “If (Northrop Grumman) has offered the tanker that best meets the needs of the Air Force, so be it.”
“The GAO, not Boeing’s friends in Congress, can best be trusted to make that call.“
– Christian
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey! That “America’s New Tanker” site you linked to is private: a user name and password is needed to view it.
So the link is quite worthless.
You fail to mention that the EADs proposed plane maybe ahead of schedule because they have unlimited funds coming in from their associated Europeon governments! (That is also why there is a lawsuit filed by the US against Airbus in the WTO. Unfair competion in the global marketplace for commercial airplane sales.) This financial factor was not to be evaluated by the Air Force as directed by a letter from John McCain, violating exactly what we are trying to overturn at the WTO. McCain has not saved us any money, but cost us more. had he not forced the cancellation of the original lease deal from Boeing, we would already have new refuelers in the fleet. I refuse to pay taxes to fund European jobs to build our military equipment, when we are quite capable of building them here. This is political as McCain employees and noow has campaign workers who are ex-EADS lobbyists, that stinks of impropriety! I urge everyone to contact there congressional representatives!!!
Didn’t Boeing just deliver a KC-767 refueling plane to Japan?
Airbus has no unlimited funds. It would nto drastically cut personnel despite the political interest.
It gets money for development that needs to be paid back and for research that yields openly available research eports.
Boeing is well-subsidized through overpaid DoD development & production contracts (they even get paid to CLOSE lines…) plus DoD/DARPA research contracts and pro-Boeing folks cannot really claim that Airbus is at an unfair advantage in financing.
.
And you “refuse to pay taxes to fund European jobs to build our military equipment”?
Do you think that’s a correct move? Not always best, rather always indigenous hardware?
And what happens when the Europeans think alike and simply stop buying American weapons?
Weapons are some of the very few goods categories with a positive U.S. trade balance.
You wouldn’t be happy if that changed.
Right “ON”
Where there is smoke there is generally fire.
Senator McCain
Can we get on thing straight? John McCain is not the President of the United States (yet), he is a member of the Legislative branch. He cannot direct the Air Force to do anything. However, as a high ranking (though minority) member of the Armed Services committee, I’m sure he has influence. But then so do the other members of the committee.
It’s really quite pitifull that people like “Jean” want to turn this into a political football.
Ken
Jean,
Did Boeing promise you a job when you retire from the Pentagon?
I for one believe that the ability to deliver a superior tanker on schedule at a competitive cost is a good thing. If the Europeans want to subsidize any part of this contract (saving US taxpayers $$$) I’m all for it! God Bless ‘em.
You also won’t be funding any more European jobs with the Northrop Grumman win than if Boeing had won. Both use Global suppliers. And please, while I don’t agree with John McCain on everything, he did a fine job of outing the crooks in the previous, non-competitive, tanker leasing deal.
Shame on Boeing for trying to pull a fast one on the US warfighters and taxpayers.
Don’t worry Jean,
EADS isn’t going to build anything with your money. No one is actually planning to build any planes for this contract; EADS isn’t and neither was Boeing. The reason why both competitors offered relatively old models is quite simply because they have lots of these coming back from leasing contracts. These planes are then being retrofitted for the tanker role. This is going to take place in the US any way.
BTW, this is also the reason why Boeing couldn’t offer the 777. They didn’t have any old ones lying around.
And, that’s why the AF isn’t afraid of any dependency on europe as a stable partner. NorGrum could at any time buy old A330′s off the market and continue building tankers without EADS.
So stop whining.
Christian, I figured you were out of town or you would have beat me to this development. You have to settle for just writing a better and far more widely read piece.
My preliminary judgement is that Boeing is going through the protest motions simply to generate enough public angst for the purpose of providing enough political cover for their proxies to trigger Congrssional intervention after the GAO turns down their protest.
I’ve started deconstructing their protest over at my place, and I’m amazed at how weak thier rationale is so far.
PS to the regulars: Sorry I couldn’t get here earlier (had to wait until lunch) and can’t stay to smack the trolls around.
Two things count on these boards boys and girls: facts and relevance.
Here’s the bottom line: Boeing lost to the KC-45 on technical grounds, and is trying to overturn the win via political maneuvering. I’m actually looking for ANY legitimate basis Boeing might have with their protest and so far have not found it. If I see or hear any supported FACTS that Boeing didn’t lose on technical grounds, I will acknowledge it when and IF it happens.
Steve,
Shame on YOU for believing Boeing was trying to pull a fast one on the US warfighters and taxpayers.
SMSgt Mac,
Boeing is protesting because it believes that it offered the best solution to the need to replace KC-135s & that if the evaluation had been based on the stated criteria et cetera (even AFTER it had been changed JUST SO THAT NG/EADS COULD BE COMPETETIVE – since there HAD to be competition) that it SHOULD have won.
You can debate if you believe Boeing is correct or not but THAT is why Boeing is protesting.
> After the “donations to the Republican Party and their lobbyist on HIS STAFF, what would you expect?
and what about Murray and Dicks? they practically seem to be Boeing’s personal senators
both Boeing and NG have large lobbying organizations
> American Jobs and our economy can use the boost
in which case you should be glad the EADS/NG bid won, because it will likely results in MORE jobs over the long haul
there is less than 25% difference in American content between the two bids
BUT with the KC-30 we also get all A330-200F assembly
and once they have an assembly line here, parts that used to make sense to source from Europe will now be sourced from America
and once they have a working assembly line in the US, Airbus (which is desperate to shift costs to the dollar zone) won’t simply shut it down when the freighter run ends, they will continue to build other models at the plant
this is a long-term investment in the future of America’s aviation industry
> The reason why both competitors offered relatively old models is
> quite simply because they have lots of these coming back from leasing
> contracts. These planes are then being retrofitted for the tanker role.
????
both the KC-767AT and KC-30 are NEW BUILD
> Shame on YOU for believing Boeing was trying to pull a fast one on the US warfighters and taxpayers.
i believe he was referencing the first leasing deal not the current competition
during which Boeing DID try to pull a fast one
maybe not directly relevant to this competition but . . .
> Boeing is protesting because it believes that it offered the best solution
whatever they believe about the merits is irrelevant
it would be a breach of fiduciary responsibility not to protest regardless of what they believe
when the upside is so large and the downside is nil, you have no choice but to protest
Yeah Jean, I mean hasn’t everyone been saying they want a fair competition? It doesn’t seem fair when one company is being propped up by the government. And what about all the money we lose when jobs are shipped overseas. It’s not just about what Boeing brings in, but about the entire economic impact. Especially when over 44,000 people will have some more cash to throw around.
SMSGT,
Are you active duty Air Force??? If so then why are you commenting on a program that is being contested? The Chief of Staff, or whatever zoomies call the guy in charge put out a prohibition on that type thing…what gives?
> SMSGT,
>
> Are you active duty Air Force???
if you read his blog you would know
“I retired from the Air Force 15 years ago, and today, if I had Mr. McGraw within arm
the best aircraft DID win…..get over it, Boeing.
Boeing is Greedy. Probably wouldn’t be able to deliver on time because of all the projects and contracts.
” I refuse to pay taxes to fund European jobs to build our military equipment,”
Sorry, you already are. DOD buys hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment from Thales and EADS every year. Besides, why are you OK with paying taxes so that Boeing can screw the government? Because that’s what you’re saying you want if you take EADS out of the competitive picture.
” what happens when the Europeans think alike and simply stop buying American weapons?”
America loses big time. We sell a LOT more to them than they sell to us. Including Boeing, which sells billions in defense equipment to Europe every year, then turns around and hypocritically whines when the Europeans win a contract here.
irtusk,
First let me appologize for my last post, it was a bit too harsh.
Now back to the show…
Boeing was NOT trying to pull a fast one on anybody during the lease deal. The lease was ALL congress’s doing. Some INDIVIDUALS did try to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain. There was both good & bad that went with the lease deal. The lease was going to cost more overall than a straight purchase BUT the funds for the lease did not have to (& were not going to) come from the USAF procurement budget.
pfcem
you do know there are people in prison for the lease scandal and many others lost there jobs?
do you work for booing? it very much sounds like it.
“Boeing was NOT trying to pull a fast one on anybody during the lease deal.”
Very amusing. You don’t consider bribing a government official to agree to pay an inflated price for Boeing products “pulling a fast one”?
Yes I am very much aware of the scandals with the lease deal. I am also fully aware that the same kind of dealings occur more often than most people even want to know. Siting past Boeing scandals while ignoring the past scandals of others is disingenuous & shows a clear bias.
No I do not work for Boeing. Who actually builds the tankers is a secondary issue with me (not that it is not important but choosing the RIGHT tanker is of MUCH greater importance for me). If it were the NG/EADS who proposed the 767-sized airframe & Boeing who offered the A330-sized airframe I would be posting just as strongly for NG/EADS.
“Siting past Boeing scandals while ignoring the past scandals of others is disingenuous & shows a clear bias.”
What is disingenuous is your effort to deny and diminish the importance of the leasing scandal. “Oh, it was all Congress, and a few bad apples, and it wouldn’t have been so bad if the lease went through, anyway.” Yeah, right. And now you apparently want to argue that because other companies have had scandals, we should ignore the Boeing scandal, which is directly relevant to the current issue at hand.
Yes, Boeing tried to pull a fast one, yes, they tried to screw the Air Force, the government, the taxpayer, and the warfighter, and shame on you for trying to convince everyone that this was not the case.
Lugo,
Where have I denied &/or diminished the importance of the leasing scandal?
Hell, I have been quite vocal that it is BECAUSE of scandals in the leasing deal that we are in the mess we are in now (in fact if the lease had continued & was on schedule we would already have taken delivery of the 20 leased KC-767 with the 1st batch of 80 purchased KC-767 being delivered THIS YEAR). Druyun, Condit & Sears got what they deserved for their unethical conduct but do not be so naive as to apply what THEY did to the ENTIRE Boeing company.
Do some research on past NG & EADS/Airbus scandals & put the Boeing lease scandals into a more realistic perspective. ;)
BUT despite what you & others appear to want people to think, the scandals in the leasing deal DO NOT change the fact that a 767-based tanker IS MUCH CLOSER to what the USAF wants & asked for than a A330-based tanker.
Where have you denied and diminished the importance of the leasing scandal?
When you said, “Boeing was NOT trying to pull a fast one on anybody during the lease deal. The lease was ALL congress’s doing”, and “Shame on YOU for believing Boeing was trying to pull a fast one on the US warfighters and taxpayers”, you were denying that the scandal was Boeing’s fault.
When you said, “There was both good & bad that went with the lease deal. The lease was going to cost more overall than a straight purchase BUT the funds for the lease did not have to (& were not going to) come from the USAF procurement budget”, you were trying to diminish the importance of the scandal, since in your view “good” would have resulted from the lease deal as well as bad.
When you bring up irrelevant Northrop and EADS scandals, you are trying to diminish the importance of the Boeing scandal (by implying that everybody does it) and to distract attention from the Boeing scandal.
All of this is shameful.
“a 767-based tanker IS MUCH CLOSER to what the USAF wants & asked for than a A330-based tanker”
It is manifestly not true that the Air Force wants a KC-767, since THEY DID NOT CHOOSE IT. Geez. Are we to believe that YOU know more about what the Air Force wants and needs than Sue Payton and the entire USAF acquisition team?
Lugo,
BOEING didn’t try to pull a fast one over anybody. Congress wanted to lease tankers in order to get new tankers into service QUICKLY & without tapping into the procurement budget. Darleen Druyun was a corrupt acquisition executive. The tanker lease was NOT the only program she used her position for her own personal benefit & Boeing was not the only company she “helped”.
Pointing out that scandalous actions (whether military related or not) are more common than the anti-Boeing crown wants to admit DOES NOT diminish the importance or distract attention from the Boeing scandal – it puts it into proper perspective! Quite the opposite in fact – those who only mention the 767 lease scandals are diminishing the importance &/or distracting attention from the fact that others (such as competition for the KC-X) are NOT “pure as the wind driven snow”.
The lease scandals were actins by a select few individuals NOT the Boeing company or the USAF.
The same is true for those who point out the delays & cost issues of the KC-767 & 787 but (conveniently) fail to mention the delays & cost issues of NG/EADS. A330 MRTT, A350, A380, A400 all have their own delays & cost issues…
Yes, the USAF DID choose the 767 (YEARS ago). Then the lease deal was cancelled due to the scandals & the USAF was FORCED to recompete the contract (with SEVERAL changes) – because of the scandals Boeing COULD NOT be “given” the contract. Since their HAD to be a new competition but a A330-based tanker is/was NONCOMPETATIVE the entire “competition” had to be steared away from what the USAF wanted just so that the would be a competition since the only other competator was not going to compete for a contract it new it could/would not win.
“BOEING didn’t try to pull a fast one over anybody.”
Oh good grief, are you still insisting on this? Talk about ludicrous denial. BOEING TRIED TO SCREW THE GOVERNMENT. They quite deliberately bribed an official to inflate the price and break the rules. People went to jail for this, so there really isn’t any doubt about it. Your efforts to shift the blame to Congress and Darleen Druyun are just absurd. Yes, Darleen was corrupt. But who corrupted her? BOEING. Perhaps the tanker lease was not the only program she “helped”, but she pleaded guilty to helping many other Boeing programs, and did not plead guilty to helping any other company (she admitted to awarding Boeing a higher than deserved price for the tankers, for AWACS, for C-130J avionics modernization, and for C-17s). In short, Boeing was very dirty. And anyway, so what if she helped a lot of programs other than tanker? How does her broad pattern of malfeasance prove Boeing did not try to pull a fast one on the tanker lease, as seems to be your claim?
As for Congress wanting to lease tankers to get them into service quickly, well, number one, that legislation reflected the slimy hands of Boeing lobbyists and Boeing’s Congressional lackeys. Number two, did Congress order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers? No, it did not, that was Boeing, and nobody else but Boeing, trying to pull a fast one.
“Pointing out that scandalous actions (whether military related or not) are more common than the anti-Boeing crown wants to admit DOES NOT diminish the importance or distract attention from the Boeing scandal”
That is clearly your intent.
“The lease scandals were actins by a select few individuals NOT the Boeing company or the USAF.”
Absolute rubbish! The inspector general’s report on the tanker lease scandal quite clearly shows that the TOP BOEING LEADERSHIP – not some low-level executives exceeding their authority – was involved in trying to pull a fast one on the tanker lease. The likes of Sears, Condit, and Rudy de Leon, among others, are not simply “a few individuals” – they pretty much ARE (or were) Boeing, and their actions are properly viewed as the company’s actions. With authority comes responsibility, after all. As for the USAF, it was not just Druyun, but many other officials (Roche, Aldridge, Sambur) were critical in moving the lease deal forward without following the proper procedures.
“Since their HAD to be a new competition but a A330-based tanker is/was NONCOMPETATIVE the entire “competition” had to be steared away from what the USAF wanted just so that the would be a competition since the only other competator was not going to compete for a contract it new it could/would not win.”
The A-330 clearly IS competitive, since it won. Indeed, it has beaten the 767 FIVE TIMES (US, UK, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia). Do you argue that all of these competitions were somehow improperly influenced by Airbus? Do you argue that not just one but FIVE different air forces somehow don’t really “know what they want”? Once again, the idea that the whole Air Force and OSD acquisition bureaucracy doesn’t really know what it wants – but you do – is simply preposterous.
Lugo,
Whatever, by your criteria nearly every company on the planet needs to has executives be fired & go to jail and the company fined.
The very simple issue is that it is the SYSTEM which is corrupt (& WAY too politically motivated) & singling out Boeing is disingenuous AT BEST. It is also disingenuous to blame an ENTIRE company for the actions of a few individuals. Besides attempting to get a better price for a program which YOU are assuming all the risk is NOT trying to pull a fast one.
Yes Congress did “order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers” by legislating a lease rather than a purchase.
What is MORE important, however, is that Congress was willing to provide the USAF with the money needed to do so…Even though it would cost more overall, the funds would be easier to obtain because funds for leasing tankers would not have to come from/go to the USAF procurement budget…
Don’t confuse the UK, Australia, UAE & Saudi Arabia with the US. The US has VERY different tanker requirements than they do.
The USAF DOES (& did) know what it wants. It chose what it wanted (which ws not difficult given what it wanted) YEARS ago but BECAUSE OF the scandals (which by your criteria the USAF was just as guilty as Boeing) that choice was taken away from them. And BECAUSE OF the scandals, the USAF had to go out of its way to appease the only possible competition (which had previously lost) JUST SO that there would be a competition.
Sorry but the KC-30 was only competative AFTER changes were made to the criteria. Changes specificly made so that it COULD be competative!
“by your criteria nearly every company on the planet needs to has executives be fired & go to jail and the company fined.”
Who cares about my criteria? This is not about my criteria. By the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S criteria, Boeing was crooked as hell, and was deservedly punished. Can’t understand why you think gross corruption is no big deal, though. Your dismissive attitude towards Boeing’s past crimes certainly destroys any claim you may have of objectivity regarding the tanker competition. A guy who doesn’t believe Boeing did anything wrong back in 2001 is simply not credible on the merits of the 767 vs. the 330 or on the fairness of the process.
“The very simple issue is that it is the SYSTEM which is corrupt (& WAY too politically motivated) & singling out Boeing is disingenuous AT BEST.”
Absolute rubbish! “The system” did NOT make Boeing systematically bribe Darleen Druyun. Boeing KNOWINGLY committed criminal acts.
As soon as you can cite which other companies have been punished for bribing Darleen, and which other companies have had their executives jailed in a corruption scandal, then your argument that “singling out Boeing is wrong” may have some merit. The fact is that Boeing is the ONLY company that has been punished for bribing Darleen, so it is ENTIRELY PROPER to single out Boeing!
“It is also disingenuous to blame an ENTIRE company for the actions of a few individuals.”
More rubbish! Entire companies are rightly held responsible for what their CEOs and CFOs do.
“attempting to get a better price for a program which YOU are assuming all the risk is NOT trying to pull a fast one.”
Absolute tripe! Do you think the ends justify the means? There is nothing wrong with trying to get a good price for a product, but HOW Boeing did so was entirely improper. There is no doubt whatsoever that Boeing’s methods for “trying to get a better price” were improper – and they were trying to pull a fast one – that is why people went to jail!
“Yes Congress did “order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers” by legislating a lease rather than a purchase.”
More total garbage. Congress authorized the Air Force to lease aircraft. Congress did NOT set a specific price for doing so, least of all a grossly inflated price. Indeed, Congress mandated that the Air Force should NOT pay an excessive price for the lease (“The present value of the total payments over the duration of each lease entered into under this authority shall not exceed 90 percent of the fair market value of the aircraft obtained under that lease.”) The final, grossly inflated price negotiated with the Air Force was SOLELY the product of Boeing’s greed and bribery of government officials, NOT anything Congress did.
“Congress was willing to provide the USAF with the money needed to do so…”
Hello, Congress did NOT tell the Air Force to pay whatever inflated figure Boeing asked! How can you possibly imagine that Congressional intent was to allow the Air Force and the taxpayer to be ripped off?
“Don’t confuse the UK, Australia, UAE & Saudi Arabia with the US. The US has VERY different tanker requirements than they do.”
Yeah, and if one had to guess, one would guess that these countries would be MORE likely than the US to pick a 767 than a 330. The fact that they didn’t is very telling about the quality and price of the 330 relative to the 767.
“The USAF DOES (& did) know what it wants.”
You are right! It wants the KC-45A, because that is what it chose in a free and fair competition.
“It chose what it wanted (which ws not difficult given what it wanted) YEARS ago but BECAUSE OF the scandals (which by your criteria the USAF was just as guilty as Boeing) that choice was taken away from them.”
When the Air Force “chose” to lease the 767 years ago, that was NOT a real choice! Firstly, Boeing improperly influenced the choice – they twisted arms in Congress and they bribed Darleen, remember? Secondly, the Air Force did not have a real choice at that time because the 330 tanker was not yet sufficiently mature and because Boeing’s Congressional lackeys prevented proper consideration of the alternatives. When they had a real choice, the Air Force chose the 330, quite fairly and properly!
“Sorry but the KC-30 was only competative AFTER changes were made to the criteria.”
Sorry, but the competition was free and fair, and the USAF got what it wanted. As SSgt Mac correctly observes, so-called “changes” that occur before the final RFP is issued are totally irrelevant, and Boeing only keeps yammering about these “changes” in order to delude the ignorant.
On a lighter note, the link in the article now works and leads the viewer to an NG website. So it was NG that was spamming me? They must read Defense Tech because after I griped I stopped getting unsolicited e-mail from them.
If they are STILL reading here: now all you have to do is put some ‘content’ there. May I suggest a Fisking of Boeing’s protest summary? (I know, the lawyers will say “no” – I understand.