Posted on 07/09/2008 12:15:52 PM PDT by jazusamo
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced Wednesday that Northrop Grumman and Boeing will have to submit revised proposals for the Air Force’s highly contested aerial refueling tanker program.
The Pentagon chief's decision comes after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld Boeing's protest of the Air Force's decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS North America, the parent company of Boeing rival Airbus.
“I have concluded that the contract cannot be awarded,” Gates said at a Pentagon news conference. Northrop Grumman won the heated competition on Feb. 29, but is currently under a stop-work order.
The decision means Boeing could win the contract. After it lost the initial decision, it opened a risky lobbying and public relations battle against the Air Force’s decision in the hope of overturning it.
The Pentagon had 60 days to decide how to heed the GAO's recommendations, but intense pressure from Capitol Hill likely sped up the decision by several weeks. Congress is to hear testimony on the GAO report on Thursday.
Boeing's congressional supporters used the GAO's ruling to push the Pentagon to reopen the competition. In its report, GAO said the Air Force made "significant errors" in its selection process.
Gates said John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer and a former Senate Appropriations Defense staff member, would be in charge of the tanker selection. Air Force officials were in charge when the contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman.
The Air Force will still be in charge of the program once a contractor is selected, Gates said.
Young said that the Pentagon will issue a draft request for proposals that will address all of the GAO's findings. The Pentagon is not starting the competition from scratch but is asking the bidders to modify their proposals to address the GAO concerns. Young stressed that he wanted to see as few areas as possible changed in the request for proposals.
The Pentagon will issue the draft request at the end of the month or the beginning of August. Young expects to select the winner by the end of the year.
Young was not clear how the Pentagon will handle the fact that a contract already was signed with Northrop.
Gates said that he hoped the Pentagon's way forward on the tanker program would restore confidence among lawmakers who have been increasingly critical of the Air Force's ability to select a new tanker — the service's No. 1 priority.
Thanks, I appreciate your accepting my apology with class. I meant it. I try not to say something online that I wouldn’t say directly to someone’s face. I just enjoy Free Republic a lot more when I am not emotionally invested in my stance on an issue rather than the substance of an issue.
I probably get the angriest when I realize I am ill informed on an issue I should know more about. I plead laziness.
Thanks for your information on this issue. It has made me analyze more fully my view on these things.
Source?
“someone who supposedly served”?
Ok, then I guess that you’re just someone who supposedly fixed planes for 25 years.
Fogleman is paid to tow the company line therefore he’s biased.
How do you know Handy isn’t a paid hack?
Kinda funny how Handy whines about needing small to medium tankers when the A330/KC-45 is in the same size class as the 767/KC-767 he supports.
Oh BTW, you might want to be a bit more honest in your claims since it was 22 generals in total, and only 9 of them were affiliated with either Northrop Grumman or EADS.
And your figures are off since in 2007 Northrop Grumman spent 10.9 million and Boeing spent 10.6 million.
So far this year Northrop paid out $3.31 million in lobbying fees, while Boeing spent $2.8 million.
All those figures fall well short of your claimed 2 million dollar difference in lobbying fees spent.
Also of note, Boeing is said to be prepared to spend upwards of 250 million to get the contract.
So you claim.
What part of whole line moving here do you not understand?
And last I checked Nashville Tennessee isn’t located in france or europe for that matter.
That analyst is an independent, who had nothing to do with the bid that Northrop Grumman won.
And hate to break it to you but personal anecdotes are not facts nor do they “sum it up”.
I want to see your claims about asking aircrews in writing.
Obviously if they hate the KC-45 that much they must be writing letters to the editor, or blogging, or whatever about it.
I’ve searched the better part of the day and I can’t find anything to support your claim about crews not wanting to fly it. The only thing remotely close was a gripe about the remote refueling station which is hardly “refusing to fly” the KC-45.
The Air Force didn’t change anything midstream.
I havn’t seen you or the others offer any specifics.
Northrop Grumman is going to use over 200 AMERICAN companies for the KC-45, while Boeing is going to use Italian, British, Canadian, Japanese, and Chinese companies to build the KC-767AT that it's offering the Air Force.
And by any chance can you tell me when the first flight of the KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker) was?
You’re welcome.
I suggest that you look up who’s building what for who.
But hey if you’re OK with communist china making parts for our military aircraft then so be it.
Oh, and since you’re the “expert”, when was the first flight of the KC-767AT that Boeing offered the Air Force?
And your point is?
Didn't see any date for Airbus' boom operation although I do believe I've read that they have tested it.
Note that deliveries have not yet been made and that UK variant will, like the 310 conversion, be probe and drogue only...?
To respond to your USA versus china et al statement, please see:
"EADS North America is a team mate and principal contractor of the Northrop Grumman KC-30 industrial team. The team is committed to delivering an American military aircraft program with tanker assembly taking in place in the United States and with more than 50 percent of the aircraft, subsystems and support being provided by American partners and suppliers."
Half of the AC to be US sourced...??
Then, there is:
"Development of the KC-30 industrial facility will begin at a new Airbus Engineering Center in the United States, with...its employment growing to approximately 150 persons. This facility is to support continuing engineering work on commercial Airbus models and military derivative aircraft - including the A330, A340 and A350 jetliners, as well as the KC-30 tanker.
Production...Activities will include aircraft final assembly, militarization and modification. Depending on the size and pace of the Air Force order, the total facility investment could reach $600 million, and direct employment levels could be as high as 1,000 workers...and management. The KC-30 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-30 team will employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies...EADS will co-locate the production of the Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker platform and the Airbus A330 civilian freighter aircraft at its Mobile, Alabama aerospace center of excellence.."
In case you missed it, HALF the AC will be foreign built, MOST of the US procurements will be from the same US sources as Boeing would utilize, Mobile hopes to get $600 million dollars it didn't have yesterday, and that last number would NOT be required if existing facilities and organizations were used(!)
check your sources for SCAREBUS as they also use china, Japan russia ect.
Also Airbus is not moving the entire ops. WINGS and FUSELAGE to be built in EUROPE and shipped for ASSEMBLY. go look it up on airframers.
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A330_A340
Go talk to the flyboys yourself i have not seen a single aircrew member post a possitive blog about that POS.
Neither Fogelman nor Handy are employed by BOEING. Fogelman is a independent consultant. Handy works for a transportation company. Like to see you call them a PAID HACK to there Face. And yes all of those Generals where employed by EADS/NG. You must be A paid EADS hack as all you can do is put the LOTION ON and Drink The EADS KOOL AID and spew the crap line.
KC-767AT first flight 21 dec 2006. and guess what its FAA certified. and its boom works.
Go back and check your facts on the slush money. that was a total. not just this year
Face it, the EADS plane cannot do the Job. Period. Its Unable to perform emegency proceedures, and cannot refuel certain aircraft.
And yes I have worked, preflighting, flight planning and flying on Aircraft for over 25 years. Thats what 25 more years than you.
Can you provide a source?
There is no such date for a maiden flight at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767.
Can you provide another source e.g. like Boeing or FAA?
Yes I can
Try any of the following. and it has been delivered and has a operating boom that has passed alot more gas than the OTHER ONE.
Boeing.com
Wikipedia.com
Defencetalk.com
Aero-news.net
Globalsecurity.com
Air-attack.com
Aviationnow.com
Sflorg.com
Neither of your links confirms a flight of a KC-767AT.
Try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767
read the page look at the DEVELOPMENT AREA it says the maiden flight date right there May 21 2005.
its there go find it.
The KC-767’s have flown have passed gas have a working boom
It has been delivered to Japan and Italy. The proposed USAF KC-767 is nothing more than a modified Japan or Italy model like any other aircraft we have in the inventory. a model base line production aircraft, b model modified from a a model. They fly they do the job and have a WORKING BOOM AND DROGUE system.
Once again the EADS PR MAN cannot get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.