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.
PR optimism
Old: "time-proven"
New: "modern"
Still on the drawing board: "advanced"
Like jingoism saved the US automotive industry?
Oh well I’m sure that the Congress and Senate will kill the Scarebus anyway especially after the DOD is Changing the RFP again.
Congress or Senate may only kill the changed RFP. After that we'll have a totally new team at DoD and a new RFP within a year or more. Then again the loser will go to GAO ... after 5 years Boeing ultimately wins the contract at supreme court. After 5 more years Boeing is able to provide a working solution with speed limits and without all the goodies the claimed to build in because it'll be to expensive. Meanwhile Air Force rents refueling capacity from several Arabian countries like Saudi Arabia or UAE because KC-135 fleet is grounded due to accidents like the one at Geilenkirchen AB ...
And that is what alot of air crews are saying on different Tanker blogs. Let alone at the Base Clubs.
Can you provide a link to this well informed tanker blogs?
KC-135R’s are not grounded. They are flying just fine with a high Fm rate.
Try http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/
http://tanchorman.blogspot.com/
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004293.html#comments
there are many others just check local newspapers from nearby tanker bases.
NO, out of the 22 generals, only 9 had affiliations with with Northrop Grumman OR EADS. So stop exaggerating.
Make a BET who Is the LIAR
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/135573.asp?source=rss
KC-135 fleet is grounded due to accidents like the one at Geilenkirchen AB ...
That was KC-135E model and most of them are in the Boneyard now. Mainly due to age of airframes.
Crew Was from the 141st,ANG Fairchild, WA.
“seattlepi.com is temporarily unavailable.”
I guess Boeing’s bought and paid for mouth piece is writing up more lies for their master.
The liar is still you, since you keep making claims for a plane that doesn’t exist yet.
http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/
http://tanchorman.blogspot.com/
These two blogs above are just a Boeing propaganda operation.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004293.html#comments
This one above is really interesting. Very impressive was the comment of “Sluggo”:
Who ever thinks that “Parking & ramp space/weight IS the limiting factor in the basing options” does not understand high ops tempo air refueling operations. That was about third on our list in the tanker planning cell. Most of the basing options we analyzed were rejected for one reason... fuel storage and resupply. That is why you are THERE to begin with.
I can build a ramp... we did at Shaik Isa. I can change an LCN number. We did at Prince Sultan. We spent millions at several bases to build the infrastructure we required for operations and we will do it again.
WE RAN UAE OUT OF GAS during Operation Iraqi Freedom! They became an oil IMPORTER. We had to bring in a super tanker and dock it in Dubai to keep Al Dhafra full of gas [...] and we drained the super-tanker.
[...]
Your argument for Kadena does not ring true. Since I was stationed there for 5 years and worked in Wing Plans, I knew we could put KC-10 size airplanes on other parts of the airfield. Yes, I know I cannot put them on the loops by the 909th Air Refueling Squadron. No worries as I have other parking stubs to stuff them.
Flying KC-135 for 25 years, standing up the KC-135 Weapons School at Fairchild AFB, editor and writer for the KC-135 3-1 tactics manual and running the Air Refueling Control Team for two major air campaigns... so I can say “Been there... Done That!”
I guess your are “pfcem”. It fits to your profile. “pfcem” always missed the point and tries hard to build strawmen.
KC-135R’s are not grounded. They are flying just fine with a high Fm rate.
I think you didn't get the fictional part.
But the KC-135E fleet is almost grounded.
Yeah.
I find it funny how Boeing can claim over 75 years of tanker experience when the last one they delivered was 45 years ago.
The first inflight refueling was between 2 DH-4B’s made by de Havilland.
Boeing is taking credit for something they had no part in.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/refueling.htm
The only thing Boeing can claim from early refueling was that they built the B-29’s that were later modified into KB-29’s. And even that’s a stretch since the refueling equipment installed was British designed and manufactured and was installed at an Air Force depot.
“In the UK, Alan Cobham bought the patent from David Nicolson and John Lord for £480 each and then pioneered research on the probe and drogue method, and gave public demonstrations of the system. In 1934, he founded Flight Refuelling Ltd. (FRL), and by 1938 had used an automatic system to refuel aircraft as large as the Short Empire flying boat Cambria from an Armstrong Whitworth AW.23.[3] Handley Page Harrows were used to refuel the Empire flying boats for regular transatlantic crossings. FRL still exists as part of Cobham plc.
In January 1948, General Carl Spaatz made aerial refueling a top priority of the new United States Air Force. In March 1948 USAF purchased two sets of Cobham’s refueling equipment, which had been in practical use with BOAC since 1946, and manufacturing rights to the system. FRL also provided a year of technical assistance.”
Not a very substantial U.S. commitment. 50% of the money is going straight to Europe.
And EADs has been majorly busted on its lies before about U.S. business usage. Outside of K-Street lobbyists, their employment in the U.S. is just about nil.
You need to read the most recent post from Tanker War Blog, there is no denying the factual and philosophical realities described:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008EADs and its business model, if left unchecked, then those 400+ U.S. companies you talk about won't be surviving much longer...How EADS is Killing the Aerospace Free Market
EADS subsidies do no exist in a vacuum. These subsidies cause a ripple effect throughout the industry.
As a direct result, US aerospace companies lose market share and American aerospace workers lose current and future jobs. Additionally, to compete against these subsidies American companies are forced to cut costs; many times through the use of overseas suppliers, causing further US job loss.
America is not the only country affected. Canada which has the world's fourth largest aerospace industry - generating more than $22.7-billion in 2007 - has also suffered. Unlike the US though, Canada has decided to join EADS in the subsidies game.
The Canadian Government recently announced a $350 million dollar loan to support local owned Bombardier's new C-Series airliner. According to Canadian Business: This is a plane that will reportedly use 20% less fuel than comparable aircraft on the market at a time when airlines around the world are struggling with record high fuel prices. According to Bombardier, it will give the third-largest civil aircraft manufacturer a huge advantage. So why are Canadian taxpayers involved?
Government officials, who hope the loan will earn a “positive” return, say they want Canada to maintain its strong position as an aeronautics supplier. They point to a $250-million auto fund, as if that shows the Harper government has always supported the logic behind corporate handouts (rather than offering another good example of Harper’s growing capacity for pandering).
Simply put, Montreal was competing with Missouri for assembly rights on the C-Series jet. And with buying votes in mind, the Harper government decided to sell its soul to woo Quebec. To do so, it was even willing to risk an international trade war, since the subsidized C-Series will compete with U.S.-based Boeing and Airbus-maker European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). Since EADS is the king of subsidies, we don't think they will complain too much. But, the US government and workers in Missouri should be outraged.
Brazil - home to Embraer, another competitor to the future C series - will probably also have some issues with the "loans". But, as Wikipedia points out neither company is a stranger to the subsidies game:
Both Embraer and its main competitor, Bombardier, were engaged in a subsidy dispute in the late 90s and early 2000s. It was found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), in a 2000 ruling, that Embraer has received illegal subsidies from the Government of Brazil. In its ruling, the WTO ordered Brazil to eliminate its Proex export subsidies program, which was found to aid Embraer. In October 19, 2001, the WTO ruled against Canada, just as it had ruled against Embraer, over low interest loans from the Canadian government designed to aid Bombardier in gaining market share.Just when you think a free market is starting to be established, someone calls for a new round of subsidies and it all falls apart again.
False. Why do you think the EADs executives were so smugly reassuring their European work force that the sale of the tanker guaranteed THEIR jobs.
Not yours. Theirs.
H'mmmm. This guy is inadvertantly debunking you.
He is saying the infrastructure renovations are significantly costly...and he is all set to do it again...spend taxpayer money as if it is water. Okay.
Guess we may not wish to consult with him on saving our dollars.
And his fueling storage and resupply position I will now take with a hefty dose of salt. As if those aren't infrastructure as well...
You seem to be forgetting the KC-10s (now also Boeing) and the KC-767ATs delivered. And your ignoring of the intervening years of maintenance and support is rather dishonest.
What was especially devastating to EADs was their inability to commit to a two year time line to stand up a support system. Boeing had no problem.
That was the previous US Tanker competition that Boeing lost, that time to McDonnell-Douglas. It was MD that designed and built the KC-10's boom, thereby shooting down the myth that "only Boeing" can build a boom.
Going all the way back to the initial KC-135 purchase, Boeing has never won a US tanker competition. The KC-135 was sole sourced, and Boeing lost the ACTA competition to MD and their KC-10.
Here's a link to what operators are saying on the KC-10.net website:
http://www.kc-10.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316
I was actually excited to see that the KC-30 was selected over the 767. After looking at the "simulators" and talking with the reps at the Boom Symposium, I just got the feeling that Boeing had an arrogant "You'll get what we built" attitude. There were no plans to incorporate anything from the KC-10 except the upright sitting position and IDS. They had no interest in what the crews wanted unless the crews wanted what they had already done. Remember the AF didn't even ask us what we wanted until after the lease fiasco! I was unimpressed.Granted, the Northrop Grumman team didn't have all the bells and whistles to display (interactive simulator trailer) that Boeling had, but in talking with the guys they had there (everyone I talked to had been KC-10 guys) they had the right mindset about what would be best for us/what we wanted. Sure, we are replacing KC-135s, but I was hoping for something more similar to our beloved three-holer than the old steam jet. I think we got that, provided the appeal doesn't overturn the contract award.
For the Boeing fans out there, remember that they didn't win the KC-135 contract either... Lockheed did. We might still end up with some new Boeing tankers, but I sure would like to see these on our airfields.
__________________
911ARS, 744 ARS, Shady J 93-95
32 ARS, 305 OSS/CCTS McGuire 95-97,99-03
Now part of Boeing. You keep seeming to forget such a simple...and pivotal...fact.
It was MD that designed and built the KC-10's boom, thereby shooting down the myth that "only Boeing" can build a boom.
No. It just means that only Boeing/MD can build a boom.
EADs has had recurrent and serious problems. McDonnell Douglas was a hell of a lot better aerospace engineering firm than EADs...even with all of its espionage and $20+ billion in subsidies.
Going all the way back to the initial KC-135 purchase, Boeing has never won a US tanker competition. The KC-135 was sole sourced, and Boeing lost the ACTA competition to MD and their KC-10.
As for the KC-10...it was the best plane for the strategic refueling role. And to repeat...MD is part of Boeing. So in effect, Boeing beat Boeing. Big deal.
And according to the RFP, that strategic refueling role filled perfectly by the vastly superior KC-10 (better than any Airbus machine built to date) is not up for recapitalizing and bidding for some time.
Since the Airbus airplane is further along they got the rules changed to favor their existing airplane and didn't optimize it to meet the RFP.
Holding tight time constraints favors the more developed product. But that product by definition is less tailored to your requirements.
So the Boeing plane incorporated more features that the Air force asked for (survivability, cargo floor etc.)
The differecne in time frame can easily be made up in a faster ramp up. 12 airplanes a year instead of 9.
Did you happen to notice the first flight of the 777F. That is a similar scope to the airframe portion of the 767 tanker modifications. New cargo door, no windows (does the A330 have windows, why?) stronger cargo floor, gross weight change. All done on schedule.
Funny as I was at the Boom Symposium and there where more folks checking out the BOEING 767 Trailer than the EADS. And btw it was held at the TANKER SCHOOL HOUSE.
These two blogs above are just a Boeing propaganda operation
And your sources are not EAD PR either right.
Truth EADS/NG 22 Generals either on there payroles or consultants period.
Just like the KC-45. KC-30 a330MRTT crap you’ve been spreading EADS has 1, 1 working boom. ! delivered to RAAF but not operational or flying as a tanker.
The KC-767 has flown has passed gas. Doesn’t matter if its a,j or a at model. Its like buying a truck base model or you can get the fully loaded option. Unlike the eads your stuck with the YUGO. No up no downs NO EXTRA’s except a substandard tanker that cannot perform the JOB.
But the KC-135E fleet is almost grounded
No they are mostly in the BONEYARD.
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.