Gates reopens tanker fight

The Hill ^ | July 9, 2008 | Roxana Tiron

[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.

[Oztrich Boy]

try again look at KC-767. it covers it.

That's for the KC-767A Tanker Transport, an absolutely minimal conversion of the 767-200, with not much more than a boom added.

The KC-767AT is a whole new ball game

[cmdr straker]

UPS ordered a bunch of freighters, so now the projected line closure is in 2015

Yep they canceled there Airbust orders smart customer.

as for Tanker Blogs Wars no they are not funded by Boeing they are independent. They are FOr a American Airplane that can do the Job as requested in the RFP not a turd that cannot IE KC-30 a330MRTT. which has many issues that make it not a useable tanker.

[cmdr straker]

not by much it has alot of the same bells and whistles.
Not all but close. as for the eads it aint got NADA.

the KC-30 is not what its made up to be people.
It will cost more, as almost all of there programs are, it will be delayed as all of there programs are. and cannot do the job its suppose to.

[Oztrich Boy]

It will cost more, as almost all of there programs are, it will be delayed as all of there programs are. and cannot do the job its suppose to.

You got that right Delays prove costly for Boeing

AUSTRALIA'S decision to stop payment on six early-warning jets for the RAAF is about to cost aerospace giant Boeing $US250 million.

The aircraft builder advised shareholders today that its second- quarter results to be released later this month would include a charge of US 22 cents per share because of the delays.

The planes, based on a 737 business jet, were to be delivered fully operational to the air force in 2006.

Delivery has now been put back to until July 2009, when two will be handed over four months later than the date previously scheduled and with their onboard detection systems not in full working order.

Today's announcement came just a day after the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee in Canberra heard that the government's chief military equipment purchasing agency was far from impressed with Boeing.

The Defence Materiel Organisation revealed that it is so dissatisifed with Boeing's handling of the contract, codenamed Project Wedgetail, that it had urged another prime contractor not to offer subcontract work to the aerospace giant.

Shoulda gone Airbus

[cmdr straker]

Shoulda gone Airbus

Half the plane more cost.

EADS has ZERO AWACS experiance. Also the plne the RAAF want is not a dome top. new technology.

EADS a400 5 years behind millions over cost and Germany threating to fine or cancel.

[Oztrich Boy]

EADS has ZERO AWACS experiance. Also the plne the RAAF want is not a dome top. new technology.

EADS may not have any, but IAI Elta does

The dome top is just styling, The radar was going to be the Raytheon/IAI Elta Phalcon ESA (you know, the phased array system that actually works)

[cmdr straker]

thats the small one Israel is buying

[Oztrich Boy]

I know. But Australia needs long range, endurance, crew comfort.

The point being:: if they can shoehorn the works into a Gulfstream 550, it'll be a peice of cake to mount it in the A-310

[cmdr straker]

Takes more than that to make it work, you have High output generators that must be installed on the engine to provide enough power to the system, RADAR Sheilding, re-enforced body panels interior strengthing, Emp sheilding, It does take more than just a quick install then you must airtest for airworthy and stability. thats where Boeings 737 wedgetail awec is having problems.

[cmdr straker]

They should have bought the 767 AWACS, Japans have been in service since 2000 and they have 4 of them.

[Oztrich Boy]

They should have bought the 767 AWACS

As you pointed out. Australia didn't want the crap rotodome.

Counter option: Australia goes for the A-310AEW, which also means buying the 7-8 A310MRTT down the track. With the A310MRTT in production EADS concentrates on marketing that in competion with the Boring 767A for the USAF contracts

The EADS bird is still better, but not by so much that the "buy American" lobby can't push the contract to Seattle.

Boeing wins.

[cmdr straker]

wait and see how many countries start leaving eads as more of there ceo’s ect go to jail and it costs them more money to keep it afloat. Eads is not in good standing in the stock market and there products are WAY behind farther than Boeings. IE a-400 a380, eurofighter. Yes Boeing is delayed in the 787 but this is all new ground for anyone working with carbon fibre. It is not a easy form to work with on such a large scale. better to take time and get it right than shove it out the gate with all the bugs not worked out.

[MHalblaub]

EADS a400 5 years behind millions over cost and Germany threating to fine or cancel.

Millions over cost for A400M is correct but do you have any source to support your two other claims?

EADS has ZERO AWACS experiance. Also the plne the RAAF want is not a dome top. new technology.

A new technology by Northrop Grumman.
The NATO AWACS were converted by Dornier. Dornier is now part of EADS. These aircrafts are still maintained by EADS.

[cmdr straker]

Show me a working in service EADS AWACS plane. built by EADS. Not a upgrade or a servicing.

The military version of the four-jet Boeing 707 is the platform for NATO’s aerial reconnaissance system AWACS (Airborne Early Warning And Control System).
E3-A AWACS

It has long-range active and passive sensor systems to provide early identification of aircraft or other flying objects. The system provides control functions and can be used as an airborne operations control centre for allied combat aircraft. EADS Military Air Systems is responsible for the installation of subsystems and sensors and performs upgrade work on the AWACS fleet. The aircraft are maintained and serviced by the Dornier Aircraft Service Centre (DFW) at the Manching site. Getafe is also tasked with providing support for the Trainer Cargo Aircraft (TCA) version of the NATO AWACS aircraft.

Most have E-3’s or 767’s, Or Navy Props built by old Grumman.

737 Wedgetail and AWEC are new with none rotating annt.

[ReignOfError]

You know the hell of this is that one of these days a wing is going to fall off an old ‘58 model KC-135 inflight and about a hundred folks will perish with it. Where’s the finger going to point then?

Pilot error.

[MHalblaub]

Show me a working in service EADS AWACS plane. built by EADS. Not a upgrade or a servicing.

No, why?

Your claim was “EADS has ZERO AWACS experiance”.

Wrong again.

[cmdr straker]

And they don’t have experiance. Dornier might have maintained or done servicing on E-3 AWACS but EADS HAS ZERO never built one never flown one. Servicing and maintaning is not the same. All that means is they have done periodic structural inspections, lube and paint. Sub systems is changing little black boxes. Thats not AWACS experiance.

That is not AWACS experiance at all that going to a local PHILLIPS 66 for wash and a oil job, and having a new chip put in the brain box. if that.

Sorry charlie you is WRONG

[Paul Ross]

Nor does it change the fact that CFSP received numerous donations from Boeing.

Actually, apparently they received MORE donations from EADs prior to Frank Gaffney debunking EADs and exposing its illegitimacy in matters of defense.

In fact CFSP's own Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) AKA "The Senator from Boeing".

Actually, this makes him FAR more qualified to discuss and determine this issue than you or me.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Paul Ross]

The fact that Gaffney was willing to burn the EADs bridges...even though they clearly were quite lucrative...[can we say they tried to buy influence and sway him...?] shows his integrity...and their lack.

Can you say the same?

[cmdr straker]

http://www.namsa.nato.int/gallery/ws_awacs_e.htm

NAMSA is the NATO E-3 AWACS depot level maintainers. Not EADS. Therefore EADS is a overglorified PHILLIPS 66 station only. Lube, Wash, Wax and a Oil change. all else is taken care of by NAMSA.