DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » The Tanker Tango » Fists Bared In Congress Over Tanker Tango

Fists Bared In Congress Over Tanker Tango

KC30-c-17.jpg

From our boy Colin Clark over at DoD Buzz:

UPDATE: The House Armed Services airland subcommittee will hold a July 10 hearing at 2 p.m. in Rayburn 2118 on the tanker contract at which John Young, undersecetary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, and a representative from the Government Accountability Office will testify. ALSO, see below for information about a closed meeting today with House lawmakers, a GAO rep and one from the Pentagon.

That enormous sucking sound you heard at the Pentagon Thursday was the intake of breath by the senior OSD and acquisition officials who handled the tanker contract when they heard Defense Secretary Robert Gates offer almost no defense of the contracting process that led to the Northrop Grumman contract.

Gates was asked Thursday point blank if he had confidence in Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, who led the team that decided to award the contract. “I have confidence in the team until I find evidence to the contrary,” Gates said. Given the recent forced resignations of Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Moseley, Payton must be getting ready to move out if asked since Gates also said the Government Accountability Offices report found that the “Air Force team made significant errors. At the same time, Gates did say he needs to get a better feel for the nature of criticisms” made by the congressional watchdog and had not made any decisions about the contract yet, adding that the “first indication” he had of trouble with the contract award was the GAO report.

The Defense Secretary has made clear he will be closely watching the decision whether to rebid the deal or not, signaling that he realizes the political sensitivity of the deal, as well as raising questions about his confidence in the handling of the issue by the office of John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

“We clearly need to have an approach that has the confidence of the Congress so we are looking at several options,” Gates said. Asked if he would personally get involved in the decision, Gates said he did not think that would be “appropriate, frankly.”

UPDATE: In other tanker action today, the House Armed Services airland subcommittee met behind closed doors for more than three hours with a representative from the GAO and a fairly low-ranking Pentagon acquisition official to discuss the tanker deal. No one but lawmakers were allowed to attend. We hear that even Northrop Grumman supporters conceded that the GAO report has devastated their case. For those at the Pentagon who would like to relegate the GAO report to the usual trash can they get put in the building, our source said there was unanimity among lawmakers at the meeting that the GAO had done a fine job in its report and had the ear of members.

Keep DoD Buzz in your scan for further updates…

– Christian

Share |

June 27th, 2008 | The Tanker Tango | 392739 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/06/27/fists-bared-in-congress-over-tanker-tango/Fists+Bared+In+Congress+Over+Tanker+Tango2008-06-27+14%3A04%3A22Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Army Moves Up FCS Program Schedule | The Sunday Paper (Imminent Threat Edition) » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. maguro says:
    June 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

    re: “unanimity among lawmakers at the meeting that the GAO had done a fine job“
    It would help if we knew which lawmakers had this wonderful unanimity. Are we talking about WA and KS lawmakers or more of a general cross-section?

    Reply
  2. Thom says:
    June 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

    What a difficult situation the Air Force now finds itself in as its current fleet of tankers continues to age under heavy useage. A decision to rebid the contract will only further delay the delivery of much needed new tankers. Perhaps the best solution is to go with a split contract that allows each company to produce an equal number of tankers. I can’t see how either company will be happy with a rebid and a new decision that awards the entire contract to a single company. That could produce an ongoing cycle of protests and even more delays.

    Reply
  3. Thom says:
    June 27, 2008 at 10:12 am

    What a difficult situation the Air Force now finds itself in as its current fleet of tankers continues to age under heavy useage. A decision to rebid the contract will only further delay the delivery of much needed new tankers. Perhaps the best solution is to go with a split contract that allows each company to produce an equal number of tankers. I can’t see how either company will be happy with a rebid and a new decision that awards the entire contract to a single company. That could produce an ongoing cycle of protests and even more delays.

    Reply
  4. HumanPestControl says:
    June 27, 2008 at 11:34 am

    US Lawmakers: The DoD can choose any defense company they want, as long as it is Boeing. We will keep having competitions until Boeing is chosen.
    Did anyone raise any of the NOC/EADS concerns before, or during the so called competition? I doubt it, because everyone assumed Boeing would win, and this competition process was just a formality.……but Boeing lost. How can this happen? Boeing was preordained to win.

    Reply
  5. USMCmapper says:
    June 27, 2008 at 11:39 am

    I’m to the point now where I just want our tanker crews in new damn planes. The longer those birds are in the air, the closer we come to this worst case senario:
    “AF Tanker breaks apart mid-air: Aircrew killed. Entire KC-135 fleet GROUNDED til further notice“
    If this happens, and I pray it NEVER gets to that point, who gets the blame for it?

    Reply
  6. Macaca says:
    June 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    If that happens the Airforce will need to sue Boeing for damages: let them pay the planes we buy from another company. That would be so awesome, cant wait to see their faces when they get the bill. Besides: it will be free planes! Then we could buy even more F22’s!

    Reply
  7. bamawon says:
    June 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Who gets the blame if they fall apart-Boeing greed and lying poliicians from Washington and Kansas.Trom Mobile,Alabama-the city that won ww2 for America.

    Reply
  8. bamawonfair says:
    June 27, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Who gets the blame if they fall apart-Boeing greed and lying politicians from Washington and Kansas.From Mobile,Alabama-the city that won ww2 for America.If we gt his stolen is new civil war possible-many folks are angry down here.

    Reply
  9. mike pappas says:
    June 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    This contract was a victim of Democrat party politics. Boeing is a union company in a union state where union thugs collect union dues from union members so a large amount of money can be “DONATED” to the democratic party. Alabama on the other hand is a “RIGHT TO WORK” state, where we are free from the union thugs and have the right to negociate with an employer and get the best deal we can. This contract would have created several good permanant jobs in this region and about 45 other states, while much of the major subassembly work on this and most Boeing aircraft will occur in China. So much for “AN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT FROM AN AMERICAN COMPANY”

    Reply
  10. pleuris says:
    June 28, 2008 at 6:04 am

    So what happens when there’s a rebid and Boeing Loses again?

    Reply
  11. jonny the fart says:
    June 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    to pleuris
    _So what happens when there’s a rebid and Boeing Loses again?
    i bet that conserve faggots from the congress will give it to some chinese company. (all technologies and patents inclusive)

    Reply
  12. Tinian says:
    June 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    to pleuris
    _So what happens when there’s a rebid and Boeing Loses again?
    President Obama cancels the program.

    Reply
  13. uncle sam says:
    June 28, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    to Tinian
    President Obama cancels the program
    Yeahh… sure… as if he can…

    Reply
  14. Tinian says:
    June 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    To uncle sam:
    Don’t laugh. President Obama has already vowed to cancel the “unproven” ABM program that has succeeded in 29 of the last 30 tests.

    Reply
  15. uncle sam says:
    June 28, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    to Tinian
    do you realy belive politicans who are talking in elections?

    Reply
  16. Tinian says:
    June 28, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    To uncle sam:
    “do you realy belive politicans who are talking in elections?“
    When it involves Democrat presidential candidates promising to cut defense programs — you bet I do!

    Reply
  17. doc says:
    June 29, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Make the rule for bids, post the rules, and adhere to the rules. But Most of all be upfront in your actions and Iguess inactions.655636

    Reply
  18. Rix says:
    June 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    There’s probably a business opportunity for someone to wet lease tankers to the AF

    Reply
  19. Reader Bob says:
    June 30, 2008 at 10:31 am

    So much has been said by so many on this ongoing dilemma of the USAF trying to purchase a new air refueling aircraft. Expects have come from everywhere to offer an educated and/or not so educated opinion as to how this purchase should take place and who should be selected and why or, who should not be selected and why. With all this free help the USAF should declare this feet a no brainer.
    However, let

    Reply
  20. coviepresb1647 says:
    June 30, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Reader Bob,
    How did the Airbus A320 enter the picture? Was it not originally an A330-based airframe that EADS considered for a tanker?

    Reply
  21. Reader Bob says:
    June 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    coviepresb1647
    Sir, you are correct, and I have scolded my finger accordingly for this blunder. (Nice catch). However, now that we have officially changed a “is” to a “was” the message I was trying to convey stands. This entire goat-rope of awarding the next tanker contract is an embarrassment to the USAF and the DoD of the USA. We should expect more from the DoD and now that it has been confirmed by the GAO, that blunders of unbelievable scale were made it must be corrected. Nothing against EADS but as this is a military weapon system of great importance, it should be AMERICAN MADE 100%. EADS/Airbus make a nice airliner but for the USAF, I feel the politics of foreign relations today and tomorrow must dictate that the manufacturer of this new tanker be AMERICAN, not French, assembled in America. If the French get upset with the US or it

    Reply
  22. irtusk says:
    June 30, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    > Northrop Grumman (NG) did NOT win the contract.
    yes they did
    > The prime contractor was/is EADS of France.
    nope
    > The A-320 they selected for their tanker.
    as previously pointed out, wrong again
    > However, it is still MADE in France and EADS gets most of the money.
    wrong again
    60% of the money stays in the US
    > We must never forget this level of support the French gave to the USA.
    and this has nothing to do with the tanker contract
    > Boeing has been building tanker aircraft for just about 60 years.
    the last tanker they delivered to the US was over 40 years ago
    i don’t believe many people associated with that project are still at boeing
    all that experience didn’t do Boeing a lick of good when the USAF ordered the KC-10, why should it matter now?
    how much tanker experience did McDD have when the KC-10 was ordered? none
    was that a problem? nope

    Reply
  23. irtusk says:
    June 30, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    > it should be AMERICAN MADE 100%
    i guess that would exclude the KC-767 (which is made in Japan and Italy too)
    > If the French get upset with the US or it

    Reply
  24. coviepresb1647 says:
    July 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Irtusk,
    Perhaps I am missing something too. How complex is it? We go to war with the European Union (our Sovereign God forbid), and out of retaliation or to avoid giving aid to the enemy, they cut off the airframe supply to Northrop Grumman to screw the US and give the EU military advantage in the war.

    Reply
  25. irtusk says:
    July 1, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    > they cut off the airframe supply to Northrop Grumman to screw the US
    1. contractually they can’t do it
    2. if EADS ever pulled a stunt like that, they would be permanently barred from the lucrative American defense market and plus lots of the parts for Airbus planes come from America (and even Boeing). It would be economic suicide for them.
    3. if the cutoff is during the supply phase so we don’t get the agreed on number of tankers it won’t matter because
    a) we will still have a sufficient quantity of old tankers
    b) Boeing will be happy to start a crash program
    c) if worst comes to worst, we can seize civilian A330s and convert them
    3. if it’s after the time when we already have all the frames, it’s even less relevant
    a) most everything except the frame is sourced from America (engines, avionics, boom, etc)
    b) the military buys spare parts. lots of spare parts. years of spare parts
    c) they require blue prints/source code/designs of everything so if the OEM ever did go away, they could make their own
    d) it’s not realistically feasible to cut off spare parts for the A330 frame as it’s used all over the world so parts will always be available from someone
    realistically the GAO can hurt us more than France and Germany ever could

    Reply
  26. pfcem says:
    July 2, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    irtusk,
    Some corrections to your ignorance…
    The last new-build KC-135 may have been delivered in 1965 but Boeing HAS been & CONTINUES to be involved in maintaining & upgrading them.
    McDonnell Douglas DID have tanker experience prior to the KC-10 — most notably for the USN.
    NG did not win the KC-X contract, NG/EADS did & the GOA has confirmed that significant errors were made & the USAF did not follow its own rules in chosing NG/EADS.
    The KC-30 IS “made” (manufactured) in Europe, only ASSEMBLED in the US.

    Reply
  27. irtusk says:
    July 2, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    » the last tanker they delivered to the US was over 40 years ago
    >
    > The last new-build KC-135 may have been delivered in 1965 but Boeing HAS been & CONTINUES to be involved in maintaining & upgrading them.
    in other words, I WAS RIGHT
    > McDonnell Douglas DID have tanker experience prior to the KC-10 — most notably for the USN.
    i thought it was so blatantly obvious that there was no need to mention it, but we are talking about BOOM tankers
    if however you do want to include hose refuelling as your criteria for experience, then you should have no problems with EADS as they have delivered several hose and drogue tankers and are thus very experienced with tankers. Is that what you’re saying?
    > NG did not win the KC-X contract, NG/EADS did
    let me quote from the first line of the GAO finding
    “The Boeing Company protests the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP)“
    did you see a reference to EADS there? nope
    NG and NG alone won the contract
    in other words, I WAS RIGHT YET AGAIN
    > The KC-30 IS “made” (manufactured) in Europe, only ASSEMBLED in the US.
    wrong yet again
    PARTS of the FRAME are manufactured in Europe
    parts of the frame are manufactured in America
    but a plane is more than just the frame
    there is also the engines, the avionics, etc etc
    60% of the plane’s value come from the US
    if you think 60% of the plane’s value is solely in the ‘assembly’ you are sadly mistaken
    and YET AGAIN I AM RIGHT

    Reply
  28. pfcem says:
    July 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    irtusk,
    You are WRONG on all accounts.

    Reply
  29. irtusk says:
    July 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    > You are WRONG on all accounts.
    well then by all means prove me wrong
    oh wait, you can’t

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    • Defense Spending Headed Down
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
    • Cancel Cyber Command
    Recent Comments
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      This has been a long time coming. Personally, I'd like...
      jkt
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Any word on what they cost per round?
      gmanaz
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      The F-22 is not going to be flying off...
      DennisBuller
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      I like chinese food.
      Armchair Ninja
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Aside from the price jump of the F35 take into...
      CHOPS
    • Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (Part 2)
      It looks like the navy gunclub got recycled to...
      bob
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      The fly away cost of the F-22 was 127 million...
      Mark
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
      What ever happened to the idea of cheap mesh networked...
      nraddin
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      I wonder if they could reengine the...
      Benjamin
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Scrap it all and make Lockheed pay us back...
      Brandon
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage