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.
Yes. There is a lot of anger surrounding this, a given because there is so much money at stake. This is simply my opinion.
“Because they now have an operating production line and processes?”
Who Boeing?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Those tankers were built on the existing line and they still couldn’t deliver on time.
Ok, what about the 400+ U.S. companies in over 45 states that would benefit from the Northrop Grumman jet? I guess you don't want your tax dollars going to them either?
"This is not protectionism, this is recognition of the fact that the ability to produce military aircraft is a strategic asset."
Hence the reason why the jets are going to be built here IN the U.S.
"I don’t care if we buy canteens from the Philippines, web belts from Bangladesh, helmets from Germany or machine guns from Belgium. If we have to reconstitute those industries in a pinch, we can do it."
Can we?
"We cannot reconstitute advanced aircraft production easily, the same way we cannot reconstitute shipbuilding capability easily if it atrophies further than it already has."
Nothrop Grumman will be building those jets HERE, not in Communist China where Boeing makes large portions of theirs.
But I guess you'll be ok knowing that critical things such as control surfaces for Boeing jets will be made with the help of China's Peoples Liberation Army Air Force factories then?
"I don’t care if the Germans can build better ships or the Swedes can build better planes. We should keep the parent companies in this country to maintain the capability."
Who do you think Northrop Grumman is?
“That’s my opinion also, especially for highly technical and complicated systems such as these tankers. Not only that but these planes will be in service for many years, should a problem arise twenty years down the road with a foreign company or country we could be screwed.”
Yeah where will Boeing go to manufacture those parts they need for our tankers?
-— Would be simpler just to give the contract to Boeing and let them choose a price to bill the Government. Boeing first tried bribery, then used their bought & paid for lackeys in Congress to stay in the running, nothing will stop them. -—
Agree 100%.
“We look forward to working with the new acquisition team as it reopens the competition, but we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company. “ Let's see now, "to determine the right path forward for the company" means that they'll offer some nice cushy jobs with big bonuses to the little GS whatever paper pushers in procurement, just like the first time.
Psssst.
Boeing is working to arm China too.
I bet your local police department is required to buy American. Many people believe their tax dollars should stay near home. (I don’t care what you drive but I do think our tax dollars should benefit our home economy, which pays the taxes).
That doesn’t make you anti-free trade. Plus it is a fool’s game to practice free trade by yourself.
Very well put.
You can’t completley remove strategic/political/economic impacts from this large of a contract. Don’t forget this is just the first batch of 179 out of 600+ tankers to be replaced.
Maybe someone can remind me of the last time an American Defense company (other than Boeing) designed and built a large airframe?
I don’t know where you get this “Boeing makes large parts of their planes in China” bit. do you know the percentage of Chinese content on the 767?
Airbus is right now sending A-320s to China to be assembled.
The KC30 would have been assemlbed in Alabama. Not manufactured, assembled. Not designed. Assembled.
Your suspicions are probably valid, typical solution would be to throw people (bucks) at the problems as soon as funding is reasonably assured.
The six months in question were not likely happy times for BAC engineers.
Remember also that they are funding, or have funded, a good bit of C-17 production on their own nickle pending USG actions and might not be over eager to risk more shareholder assets.
“The KC30 would have been assemlbed in Alabama. Not manufactured, assembled. Not designed. Assembled.”
No, the plane will be manufactured HERE because the entire A330F line is MOVING HERE.
Unlike Boeing that farms out it’s work to China, England, France, and Italy to name a few just so those KC767’s can be assembled, not manufactured. Assembled here.
The 767’s fuselage is made in Japan. The tail section is made in Italy.
And from Boeing’s own website about China:
“Current Work Packages and Procurement at Chinese-Owned Factories or Multinational Ventures
Baoji Group Ltd. in Shaanxi Province, titanium ingot, plate and sheet (2006 contract)
BHA Aero Composites Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a Boeing joint venture, in Tianjin
Interior parts, secondary composite structures for 737, 747, 767, 777 and 787 (beginning in 2002).
767 and 777 wing fixed tailing edges and dry bay barriers; empennage panels.”
“China has an increasingly sophisticated and expanding part to play in the commercial aviation industry and has a role on all of Boeing commercial airplane models — 737, 747, 767, 777 and the newest and most innovative airplane, the 787 Dreamliner.”
“Since the 1980s, Boeing has purchased more than US$1 billion in aviation hardware and services from China. Today, Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China’s aviation industry valued at well over $2.5 billion. Today, there are more than 4500 Boeing airplanes flying throughout the world with parts and assemblies built by China.”
What Boeing says about Japan:
“Japan is also a dominant market (in dollar value) from which Boeing buys major assemblies, products and services. More than 91 Japanese companies are program partners, subcontractors, or suppliers to Boeing across its commercial-airplane product lines.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) and Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) have worked with Boeing for more than 30 years. All three industries have participated in developing the 767 since its inception in 1978. They supply fuselage panels, aerodynamic fairings, landing-gear doors and inspar ribs, which are equal to approximately 15 percent of the value of the 767 airframe.”
Now what was that you said again?
Has nothing to do with it.
Has everything to do with expanding the aerospace manufacturing base of this country instead of farming work out to the Chinese as Boeing so proudly claims on their website.
“Since the 1980s, Boeing has purchased more than US$1 billion in aviation hardware and services from China. Today, Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China’s aviation industry valued at well over $2.5 billion. Today, there are more than 4500 Boeing airplanes flying throughout the world with parts and assemblies built by China.”
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/07/mil-070731-northrop-grumman01.htm
Assemblies will be transported from White Flag Waiving France and assembled by the SUB contractor NG.
I can’t wait to see the fallout from this. Just imagine if the Europeans decide to cancel purchases of F-35s, F-18s, F-16s, C-130s, E-2s, AH-64s etc and maybe rethink their orders for Boing’s new 787 in favor of domestically built weapons systems.
What a joke!
Besides the KC45 EADS plane cannot perform the job it is required just look at the info from the GAO ruling. even our pilots are laughing at that P.O.S.. They compared the KC-767 to the krap-45 the KC-767 had met the RFP the EADS not.
Tell me more.
I am interested in that one.
Is Boeing selling F-15’s to China?
The F-18?
What. . . I am curious.
Differences of opinion, reasoned debate, I've no problem with that.
Tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy stuff that clearly demonstrate no knowledge or experience in acquisition, as well as no understanding of FARs, acquisition laws, policies and oversight is a waste of my time.
Buh-bye.
If we subcontract things out, I will have to live with that.
I want the decision making at the company chosen to be American, not Chinese, not French.
To take it to the other extreme, there are some who feel that it would be fine if we purchased the tankers from the Chinese or Russians, even if 90% of the plane were made under license in the USA.
I feel differently.
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.