Comments on: Boeing Wins!

By: Sandy

Sandy — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:25:53 +0000

Hi. In the future I’m going to keep here links to their sites. But I do not worry about the sites where my link is removed. So if you do not want to see a mountain of links, simply delete this message. After 2 weeks, I will come back and check.

By: Baniz

Baniz — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:26:43 +0000

Can someone explain this stuff with smaller amt. of words for people like me

By: WR

WR — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:59:03 +0000

How true, pfcern! SSgtMac does not like the outcome and, like irtusk, cannot face or handle the truth. Resultantly, the truth bearers become misinformers, propgandists, and druggees in their own uncivil eyes. Now talk about slander by those who can’t face or handle the truth (and who are truly weak-kneed).…..

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:33:49 +0000

JJ_BPK,
Comments quoted in your own post contradict your BS. “…the GAO report points to any need for delay, AS IT WAS A REVIEW OF THE PROCESS, not the Boeing and Northrop Grumman product offerings.” It was not the GOA’s job to state any views as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft (in fact it is BEYOND the scope & authority of the GOA to do so — read the GOA statements, they make that fact clear).
“We recommended that the Air Force REOPEN discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, RE-EVALUATE the revised proposals, and MAKE A NEW source selection decision, consistent with our decision.” What part of that do you not understand?
I will refrain from commenting of the NG BS as the majority of it is disingenuous at best.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:56:16 +0000

Well boys and girls,
I just spent the better part of the evening reviewing the redacted ‘post-hearing’ AF legal brief (courtesy of NG’s tanker website) and I have to say that unless some heretofore unknown information is released related to the GAO’s ‘findings’, that is above and beyond ‘press release’ stature, the GAO weak-a** findings are SOLELY calculated to get the issue off their cowardly plate. (Like I need yet another reason to find the GAO useless.)
Don’t take my word for it. Get yourself a copy: http://www.americasnewtanker.com/docs/Public_Redacted_Version_AF_Post_Hearing_Brief.pdf

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:05:09 +0000

SMSgt Mac,
It is beyond the scope & authority the GAO to comment on the relative merit of the offers. But what it has done is confirmed that the competion WAS NOT fair &/or transparent & that erros the USAF made could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition.
***
gp,
You are confusing Boeing & the GOA believing the the USAF request & process LOOKED good before the selection was announced with them now KNOWING the USAF did not live up to its responsibilities for a fair & transparent competition.
***
hank,
Yes everyone knows there was unethical actions taken by individuals during the tanker lease deal BUT that DOES NOT in ANY WAY mean that the 767 was (& still is) not the RIGHT platform.
Yes the competition was for a new tanker, not a new KC-135. BUT it IS a competition for a new tanker to replace the KC-135. The KC-135 does not need to be replaced because it is not big enough or lacks the required capacity but because the KC-135 are getting to be to expensive to operate & are quickly reaching the end of their useful lives.
***
I would also like to address AGAIN the BS that the KC-767AT offered by Boeing is a 30 year old airframe.
The 1st 737–100 rolled out in 1967 yet the 737 (now in the –600, –700,-800 & –900 models) is STILL the “hottest” selling airliner year after year after year & has hardly anything in common with the 737–100 other than name & general fuselage cross section (higth & width). Are we to fault the P-8 for being a 40+ year old airframe?
It really is pathetic how people fault the KC-767AT for being based on a 30 year old design & at the same time fault it for being as yet unflown aircraft…

By: Leland

Leland — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:40 +0000

testing an html fix by closing the italics.

By: hank

hank — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:07 +0000

SMSgtMac — i think that anytime anyone gets fired or goes to jail over a defense contract, regardless of how many or few, that there is something very wrong with that contract. hindsight may make it look like a good deal, but at the time you can’t anticipate factors that may make a crooked deal look better someday.
the competition was for a new tanker, not a new KC-135. the plane did not have to be the same size, shape, color, etc. as the KC-135. it just had to meet the air force’s requirements. but it turns out it did have to be the same manufacturer, at least according to congress and boeing.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:14:03 +0000

RE:“I hear TONS of people ranting about how the AIr Force chose a “heavy” lift helicopter for a “medium” lift requiremnet. But when I look at posts about the KC-X debate, I see TONS of people rant about how the KC-30 is obviously the best pick, even though it was selected to replace a tanker nearly half its size.“
Easy. For one weapon system type, size is a detriment (sneaking in and out of bad places making as small a target out of yourself as possible)to the mission, and the other size has a benefit (carrying as much payload as far as possible for others to use)to the mission.
Your point about age of systems is very relevant. I wonder about that too. It seems to come down to a wistful desire to just maintain some kind of status quo as far as I can tell.

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:06:33 +0000

>Now GAO and Boeing say the process was flawed.
GP,
Read paragraph #4 in the Government Accounting Office (GAO) report closely.
The USAF changed the tanker requirements in the middle of the bid process, they told Northrup-Grumman, BUT DID NOT TELL BOEING that it did so.
In the bidding process, the USAF originally wanted to use as much of the existing KC-135 infrastructure as possible. That is why Boeing was bidding the 767-AT rather than the 777 which could not use the same hangers and shorter air fields that the KC-135 could.
The USAF decided mid-competition that fewer, bigger, tanker planes was better for the USAF procurement budget, and went for the KC-30.
That is why the GAO upheld Boeing’s protest.
I strongly suspect the reason both bids blew up on the USAF was the Fighter Pilot General’s insistence to maximize F-22s buys in the USAF’s limited procurment budget. The USAF brass involved with the bidding process were trying to free more of the procurement budget to buy fighters.
Any infrastructure cost hits for switching to the larger KC-30 mid-bid over the KC-767 would come from either the operations or facilities budgets, hence the USAF could buy more F-22s with the KC-30 than the KC-767.
The original “Tanker leasing deal” was built around “using a different color of money” than what would be used to buy the F-22.
Leasing would be part of the USAF Operation budget. You cannot use it to buy new equipment. That is what the procurement budget is for.
There are far more Congressional financial and reporting controls placed on the DoD procurement budget than either the operations or facilities line items.
This “color of money” funding game is what attracted Sen McCain’s attention and uncovered the procurment fraud that senior USAF officials were involved in.
Boeing found all this out in their bidding out brief and here we are.
The failure of both bids lies at the feet of the Fighter Pilot Generals insistance of playing budget games to buy more F-22s.