Several sources say the Pentagon will announce its way forward on the KC-X tanker contract [today].
The last I heard from sources close to the issue was that John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, wanted to go with a fly off. Boeing and Northrop Grumman would have to build and fly one or more test models. Whoever best met the requirements and demonstrated capability would win the contract. Given that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it pretty clear that he is uncomfortable relying on Youngs office about the tanker deal after all, Young signed off on and then defended the Air Force choice there seems to be a good chance that the fly off idea will be stillborn.
With [Wednesday’s] announcement Gates may be trying to get ahead of any congressional steamroller on this one, since the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee has its tanker hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon.
Several lawmakers close to Boeing have clearly signaled they expect the Pentagon to rebid the contract. One argument they offer is that Boeing is likely to sue the Pentagon unless the bidding is reopened and Boeing would use information in the GAO report as evidence. That would be perhaps the worst outcome, delaying any decision for years as things ground through the legal system and positions hardened.
Read the rest of this story, and more exclusive coverage of the Tanker Tango, at DoD Buzz.
I still don’t get this at all. Northrup won the contest. They had the better aircraft, the better features, longer, range, higher fuel capacity, and a newer boom.
All the arguments against Northtrup EADS are bogus. The idea that this will take away American jobs should have been thrown out already since the factory is to be in Alabama, a state that could use some good economic news these days.
Fact of this, GAO was coerced by Boeing’s friends in Congress. You know if it was Lockheed and Boeing instead of Northrup EADS and Boeing, this never would have happened. Boeing wouldn’t have sent a protest if Lockheed was involved. But instead since part of the partnership is a foreign firm, they talk to their allies in Congress to raise hell about it and look what happens? Air Force, just tell the GAO that your decision is made, that Northrup EADS has won and get the warfighter the plane before our KC-135s start falling from the skies do to overuse.
>I still don’t get this at all. Northrup won the contest.
Yeah, an unfair dirty contest loaded with crap to make EADS win. That’s no different from doing an election in fake democratic Russia these days which is all corrupted. Well, Boeing should understand the punishment done within the first battle as well, and I hope they learned a question.
Boeing’s tanker is not manufactured in a foriegn company and only assembled in the U.S.
So if we start buying foriegn aircraft let them start buy foriegn everything.
I am assuming that the Air Force chose the NG-EADS aircraft because it better suits there needs. The fact that the GAO found procedural errors in 7 of the 111 issues Boeing complained about should tell everyone that the bid was not rigged. Come on…didn’t everyone expect Boeing to win it because they are a US company? Boeing must do everything it can to keep EADS out of the US or it will actually have to build a BETTER aircraft for the military. EADS is to Boeing what Toyota is to GM…the giant killer. I live in Mobile and we would be pleased to have NG-EADS build here but we do respect Boeing and understand their desperation. We are doing very well in Alabama with an unemployment rate of 3.5%. Mobile has a new container port being built,a steel mill under construction that will directly employ 3,000 and shipbuilding expansions totaling over 1,000 jobs. Of course we can militarize the A330 for the Air Force as we already build aircraft carriers, destroyers and other military ships just 30 miles away in Pascagoula.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/industrials/sources-pentagon-rebid-b-tanker-contract/
Interesting… One of the issues dealt with safety. If I was crew member on one of these tankers I would hope that my superiors would pick a plane that can meet all the requirements for safety. Regardless of how much extra cargo could be carried or politics involved.
From what I understand from reading the GAO report was that the Air Force Knowingly selected a plane that could not safely meet all the flight envelope requirements.
So if the A330 is the better plane hands down then the A330 should easily win again. Hopefully Northrop and EADS can clear up the safety issue. This is not about jobs and politics it is about providing the best tanker for the Air Force not cargo planes. The Air Force currently has two good products for moving cargo in the C-17 and C-130.
Who cares where the aircraft comes from — the idea is to provide the best capability to the warfighter, not play politics or select a potentially (note — I say potentially, because I cannot personally make that call) inferior product based on nationalism. If the Air Force impartially considered the EADS tanker the best option, then lets move on! Boeing and congress will be hurting the military FAR more by delaying the IOC of the KC-X by 3 or more years than by just moving on from here. The Air Force has already been forced to wait long enough! This is absurd. I love Boeing over Airbus — don’t get me wrong, but on the other hand, I am in the Air Force, and want to see us get the best plane available ASAP, not 3–4 years later! Hypothetically, it would be similar to if we could buy Python V’s over AIM-9’s, why not? The DOD is purchasing war fighting equipment, not trying to be a stimulus package to the GDP. Boeing needs to suck it up, support the warfighter (and give a s*** about their immediate needs) rather than their company’s own bottom line for once (that’d be a first), and move on. As an Air Force member, this crap seriously pisses me off. I love Boeing as an all-american company, but on this one, they can kiss my ass.
Jim,
You are assuming wrong. The USAF chose the Boeing aircraft because it better suits there needs (it was a non brainer to those you knew about USAF tanker operations). It was SO confident that the 767 was the correct platform that it rushed the process to get the ASAP while Congress was being helpful. But mistakes were made (& unethical actions by a few individuals was expossed). Anti-Boeing elements used said mistakes & actions to block the USAF from getting the tankers it wanted & FORCED the USAF to change its criteria in order to make a non-competative A330-200 platform competative JUST SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITION. In walking that fine line of what was “necessary” to ensure that both Boeing & NG/EADS would remain in the competition (note that EADS made it perfectly clear it would pull out of the competition if it did not feel it could win & it is fair to assume that Boeing would have as well) the KC-X source selection evaluation team made a number of significant errors that favored NG/EADS.
Enough with the NG/EADS “7 of the 111″ Kool-Aid already. The GAO DID NOT rule against 104 of 111 issues! The GAO made it PERFECTLY CLEAR that it’s responsibility & authority was limited & thus COULD NOT rule on every single point in Boeing’s protest. Also note that several of Boeing ‘individual’ points DO fall under one or more of the 7 specific points the GAO ruled in favor of. The GAO rule makes it clear that either the KC-X source selection evaluation team was incompotent OR the competition WAS rigged (take your pick — either way as the GAO has stated, Boeing could have won if not for the errors that were made).
I am sure SOME “expected” Boeing to win because they are a US company but I guarantee not EVERYONE. I for one expected Boeing to win because it offered the better platform for the needs of the UASF. Unfortunately the KC-X source selection evaluation team was incompotent &/or did not have the balls to tell outside influences to “go fly a kite” &/or the competition was rigged.
Boeing DOES build a BETTER aircraft for the military & for those who actualy know & understand USAF tanker operations & requirements it is so PAINFULLY obvious.
Skyler,
Yes the idea is to provide the best capability to the warfighter, not play politics or select an OBVIOUSLY product based on the desire to satisfy outside (even foreign) influences. Unfortunately FAR too many are more concerned about politics & satisfying outside (even foreign) influences.
Funny how you are willing & able to blame Boeing (& others) for what ever further delay (which COULD, however unlikley, be as little as ONE year) yet appear to give a pass to EADS (& others) for the 6–7 year delay that has already occured. So what is it going to be, ensuring that we provide the best capability to the warfighter or just move on with what OBVIOUSLY isn’t?
The DOD is purchasing war fighting equipment, not trying to be a stimulus package to foreign GDPs.
Boeing IS supporting the warfighter, EADS needs to suck it up & realize that the A330-200 is the wrong platform for the USAF. Boeing doesn’t need the KC-X but EADS does…
What is truly pathetic about your post is that you say you “cannot personally make the call” on which is the inferior product yet throughout your post you assume that the Boeing product is without ANY vailidation as to why.
> The USAF chose the Boeing aircraft because it better suits there needs
no, it was because they were ordered to by Congress
when they actually held a competition, the KC-30 won
> (it was a non brainer to those you knew about USAF tanker operations)
obviously you know so much more about tanker operations than the AF since they found the KC-30 superior
> It was SO confident that the 767 was the correct platform that it rushed the process to get the ASAP while Congress was being helpful.
no, it was so desperate to help it’s Boeing paymasters
> FORCED the USAF to change its criteria in order to make a non-competative A330-200 platform competative JUST SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITION.
sigh, you keep lying, i keep setting the record straight
the changes made were to undo the damage Boeing did after they were allowed to rewrite the RFP SOLELY TO MAKE THE KC-767 COMPETITIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
the later changes merely get back to what the AF REALLY WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE BEFORE BOEING ELIMINATED MOST OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS
> The GAO rule makes it clear that either the KC-X source selection evaluation team was incompotent OR the competition WAS rigged
they ruled ‘mistakes were made’
and with an RFP this large and complex, it was pretty much inevitable
if Boeing had won, NG would have protested and the GAO would have upheld THEIR protest
no i can’t prove that, but commonsense would indicate that to be so
> Unfortunately the KC-X source selection evaluation team was incompotent &/or did not have the balls to tell outside influences to “go fly a kite” &/or the competition was rigged.
the Boeing fanboi crying persection and outside influence is beyond hillarious
which company had its executive go to jail for illegally influencing the tanker competition?
which company has a slew of majority party senators supporting its case
which company had the freaking PRESIDENT of the US of A push for it
that the AF went against all that pressure tells you how much better they thought the KC-30 was
> Boeing DOES build a BETTER aircraft for the military & for those who actualy know & understand USAF tanker operations & requirements it is so PAINFULLY obvious.
and yet the AF courageously went against all the political pressure and selected the KC-30
> yet appear to give a pass to EADS (& others) for the 6–7 year delay that has already occured.
1. Boeing has only themselves to blame for that by not playing by the rules
2. it wasn’t a critical need back in 2001
> Boeing IS supporting the warfighter
open your eyes man
they are doing what is best for themselves
just like NG/EADS are doing what’s best for them
> EADS needs to suck it up & realize that the A330-200 is the wrong platform for the USAF
you need to come out of your fantasyland and realize that the KC-30 is the best, most capable platform for the USAF
> you assume that the Boeing product is without ANY vailidation as to why.
pot, meet kettle
irtusk,
Get the timelime! The Congressional bill indicated the KC-767 because the USAF had already all but determined that was what it wanted & it was made clear later on that if something better was available that the better option could be taken.
When the USAF held a FLAWED competition in which it was FORCED to alter its criteria to accomodate the KC-30 & under TREMENDOUS political pressure, the the KC-30 was selected.
The USAF did not select the KC-30 under its own volition.
You have the USAF/Boeing relationship backwords.
YOU keep lying, I keep setting the record straight. It is sad how the historical record is SO different from what YOU want people to believe.
Read the 8 (that is right it is 8, not 7 — although 7 & 8 are closely related, the GAO separated them for a reason) specific points that the GAO sustained the protest for. Those are MUCH more than ‘mistakes’ & point quite clearly to either an incompetent Agency (KC-X source selection team) that does not even understand a number of its own rules &/or the meaning of its own RFP [which is what the DOD is clearly pushing] OR a “fixed” competition that heavily favored NG/EADS. It is one of the most damming & harsh ruling the GAO has ever made.
Yes, mistakes are inevitable, like the mathematical/calculation errors that were made & amazingly just before the GAO ruling admitted to.
No, commonsense would NOT indicate that the GAO would have upheld a NG/EADS protest. Not that it wouldn’r have but given that if evaluated fairly under REAL WORLD conditions & operations the KC-767AT is CLEARLY the right choice, NG/EADS would have had it much harder finding something significant enough for the GAO to rule ” 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 the GAO
> it was FORCED to alter its criteria to accomodate the KC-30
only correcting the wrong of boeing REWRITING the spec to allow the KC-767 to be competitve in the first place
> under TREMENDOUS political pressure, the the KC-30 was selected.
tremendous political pressure? from one minority party senator?
why do you keep LYING about where the political pressure was coming from?
the President and several MAJORITY party senators have been pushing for Boeing from the beginning
playing the victim will never fly on this issue and i will call you on it every single time
> The USAF did not select the KC-30 under its own volition.
sure it did
who wrote the RFP? the USAF
who ran the competition? the USAF
who selected the winner? the USAF
now if you note, control has been removed from the USAF because the political weenies have decided that the USAF isn’t going to make the ‘correct’ (Boeing) choice
> You have the USAF/Boeing relationship backwords
who was convicted of bribing the USAF to get their inferior tanker rammed through?
> YOU keep lying, I keep setting the record straight.
the next ‘lie’ you reveal will be the first
> Not that it wouldn’r have but given that if evaluated fairly under REAL WORLD conditions & operations the KC-767AT is CLEARLY the right choice
you keep living in your fantasy world where less capacity, less range and less offload is ‘superior’
> The VERY 1st thing you need to “see” is that the USAF started the process in 1996, not 2006
then why did their study in 2001 determine that there was no immediate need for a tanker replacement?
why did that study suddenly get covered up once Boeing came begging for them to save their ass?
> chose the 767 the 1st time around BEFORE ANY OUTSIDE INFLUEANCE
people went to jail for influencing that decision
to say there was no outside influence has already been proven wrong in a court of law
> Boeing COULD have offered a KC-777
sure they could have, but they would have lost because the risk would have been through the roof, they couldn’t have delivered it on time and it would have completely busted the AF’s budget
> chose to offer a KC-767 instead for a number of reasons which I (& others) have already explained but mostly for the same REAL WORLD USAF tanker requirements & operations reasons
mostly because they the entire tanker push was an attempt to salvage their obsolete 767 line
> What is best for the warfighter is to get them the RIGHT tanker sooner rather than later.
i agree, so Boeing should gracefully withdraw from this competition instead of forcing it to drag on and on
the AF has decided which plane they like the best
> Boeing (as well as most everyone who knows ‘a little something’ about USAF tanker requirements & operations) KNOWS it and is trying to get it to the warfighter
if the USAF ‘KNOWS’ it is the right tanker, they would have just selected it and avoided this whole firestorm
instead they courageously stood up to the intense political pressure and chose the best tanker
> under INTENSE opposition that is based on politics & emotion rather than merit.
pray tell, what INTENSE opposition are you talking about?
just listening to all the congresscritters whining about this decision, it’s pretty clear which side all the pressure is on
irtusk,
You need to educate yourself about what happened between 1996 & 2006. It is impossible to discuss rationally with such ignorance.
It is clear that the KC-X “competition” was run JUST FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING A COMPETITION rather than actually getting the right tanker for the USAF.
There was no IMMEDIATE need to replace the entire tanker fleet in 2001. There was, however, significant benefit to begin replacing the tanker fleet sooner rather than later. The KC-135E were failing to meet required average mission capable rate & the KC-135R were barely meeting it. Of course in 2001 the thinking was not that when be began recapitalizing the tanker fleet that we would only be acquiring new tankers at a rate of just 12–15 a year (at which will take 40–50 years to replace the entire fleet) either. And the study wasn’t covered up, new insight was gained due to the higher operations rates of post-9/11/01.
The KC-767 has MORE capacity than the RFP asked for! The additional capacity of the KC-30 is completely unnecessary (& the trades offs for that extra capacity outweighs the potential benefit even when it is a benefit at all), we don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135R MOST OF THE TIME!
Nobody went to jail for influencing the tanker lease decision. The USAF acquisitions officer & a Boeing exectutive went to jail for negotiating a job for said USAF acquisitions officer while the deal was still being made. NEITHER of those two individuals had any part in chosing the KC-767, that decision was made by the USAF AMC.
Whether Boeing could have won with a KC-777 depends on the RFP. As the RFP was written, where no extra credit COULD be given for exceeding the capatity of the opposing offer if the opposing offer met the capacity OBJECTIVE, then not likely. IF the RFP was written to ive extra credit for extra capacity, then a KC-777 kicks the KC-30’s ass. But since the KC-X program is SUPPOSED to be for a MEDIUM tanker (like the KC-135 & KC-767) rather than a LARGE tanker (like the KC-10, KC-30 or KC-777) Boeing shouldn’t win with a KC-777 for the very same reasons why NG/EADS shouldn’t win with the KC-30.
The tanker push was NOT an attempt to salvage an obsolete 767 line. It was an attept to get new tankers sooner rather than later. Of the available options for new build tankers, the 767 (a much improved variant of the A310 MRTT [maiden flight in December 2003] might have made for an interesting competition but was not offered) was CLEARLY the right choice.
The USAF DID select the KC-767 but becasue of fierce opposition to the lease, mistakes that were made trying to rush the process & unethical conduct by a select few individuals, the USAF was stripped of it ability to select the right tanker for the job & was mandated by congress to conduct a new copetition & that there HAD to be a competition. But since the only competator was not competative, the criteria had to be altered to make it competative just so that said competator would compete.
You should also schedule an appointment with a doctor to correct your selective hearing problem.
> You need to educate yourself about what happened between 1996 & 2006. It is impossible to discuss rationally with such ignorance
i have given you link after link to demonstrate what happened
you have offered … nothing
link up or shut up
> It is clear that the KC-X “competition” was run JUST FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING A COMPETITION rather than actually getting the right tanker for the USAF.
no, it’s clear from their actions that Boeing is TERRIFIED of a REAL competition because they know THEY CAN’T WIN ON MERIT
> . There was, however, significant benefit to begin replacing the tanker fleet sooner rather than later.
such as?
oh, you mean for Boeing!
sure, it would have guaranteed the future of their obsolete 767 line for a few more years
silly me, i thought you were talking about benefits for the USAF
> The KC-767 has MORE capacity than the RFP asked for!
obviously, the standards in the RFP HAD to be set LOW ENOUGH to even ALLOW THE KC-767 TO COMPETE
> The additional capacity of the KC-30 is completely unnecessary
and the USAF (who know more about the business of tanekrs) disagrees with you
> Nobody went to jail for influencing the tanker lease decision.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm
“Druyun agreed to a higher price than appropriate for a proposed deal to lease 100 tanker planes from Boeing, which she called “a parting gift” to her future employer.“
“She also shared a competitor’s proprietary data with Boeing.“
having a competitor’s proprietary information GIVES YOU AN ADVANTAGE when coming up with your own proposal
thus, this action INFLUENCED the decision
> NEITHER of those two individuals had any part in chosing the KC-767, that decision was made by the USAF AMC
no, that decision was made by Congress
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html
“Air Force Undersecretary for Acquisitions Marvin Sambur defended the Boeing deal. “This was not a competitive bid process,” he said. “The Air Force was ordered by Congress to work with Boeing on the new tanker program.”“
> SUPPOSED to be for a MEDIUM tanker (like the KC-135 & KC-767) rather than a LARGE tanker (like the KC-10, KC-30 or KC-777)
both the KC-767 and KC-30 are MEDIUM tankers
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/obscure-tanker-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/
“Rand concluded
more on Druyun influencing the lease deal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21584-2003Oct26?language=printer
” Druyun agreed at the meeting, according to notes taken by Boeing, not only to promote the leasing idea on Capitol Hill but also to find needed money by cutting back a comparatively inexpensive modernization program for existing tankers — an arrangement, Boeing and the Air Force have acknowledged, that will retire flightworthy tankers early to procure new ones.
She also said “work placement could help,” meaning that Boeing should ensure that subcontracts were awarded in the districts of key Congress members, according to the notes. She noted further that Stevens could “work” a former employee of his who was then at the Office of Management and Budget.“
basically Druyun helped KILL the KC-135 to ensure the more urgent need for its replacement and then agreed to help lean on the OMB to override their objections to the lease deal plus do lobbying in Congress
i believe it’s fair to say she ‘influenced’ the deal
1–6 are all facts
You have provided NOTHING to indicate that they are not. You may in you igronace THINK you have but you have not & you can’t BECAUSE NONE EXISTS.