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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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”
So what happens when there’s a rebid and Boeing Loses again?
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)
to pleuris
_So what happens when there’s a rebid and Boeing Loses again?
President Obama cancels the program.
to Tinian
President Obama cancels the program
Yeahh… sure… as if he can…
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.
to Tinian
do you realy belive politicans who are talking in elections?
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!
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
There’s probably a business opportunity for someone to wet lease tankers to the AF
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
Reader Bob,
How did the Airbus A320 enter the picture? Was it not originally an A330-based airframe that EADS considered for a tanker?
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
> 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
> 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
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.
> 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
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.
» 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
irtusk,
You are WRONG on all accounts.
> You are WRONG on all accounts.
well then by all means prove me wrong
oh wait, you can’t