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.
No problem. My pleasure.
It is good to ask questions.
See you around.
Didn't McDonnell Douglas send MD-80s to China to be assembled?
Anyone in the senior leadership of the USAF can be bullied by Congress or the SECDEF - particularly after the SECDEF fires the CSAF & Air Force Sec.
Anyone?
Tell that to Fogleman.
Tell that to Payton.
Tell that to any number of people I know well that do the right thing daily because that is what they are supposed to do.
Can you be bullied?
Are you saying everyone—including you—are so weak that everyone caves to bullies?
It is fair to say you don't know these people, and it is equally fair to say you don't know the way Wash DC operates.
To think Wash DC operates like commonly depicted in media and entertainment is awfully wrong and does a disservice.
No, Airbus said once the factory is in place that they will move the entire A330F line to Mobile.
And if these “assemblies” are made in France, transported here for final assembly then why the need for hundreds of manufacturers in over 40 states here in the U.S. that are making everything from wings to complete fuselage sections?
Actually the assemblies will be transported from UK, Germany, Spain.
France will have only 8% share of the Northrop-EADS KC-45A. Reason: All the assembly work will be transfered From France to Alabama (and the US keeps the supply of Engines, missile defences,etc)
If you want to screw France, buy the Airbus.
Really? Tin foil hat you say? I've got two words for you:
Darleen Druyun
>>Boeing is working to arm China too.<<
Arm China is what I was asking about.
They are arming China?
To allege they are arming China is to clearly say Boeing is selling arms to China.
What are they doing to “arm China.”
It remain tin-foil hat stuff to allege all sorts of influence and back-door dealing as business as usual-—it is very clear you are ignorant of the facts, unaware of the protocols, and oblivious to the acquisition world.
You have a blinding bias that will not be swayed by facts.
Now I really am out of here. Work to do. In the real world.
The GAO did not make a technical review of the two aircraft. It would also be bad for US defense companies and possibly commercial sales by boeing if they decided to retaliate.
Last I checked Northrop Grumman is an American company.
I find it strange that people on here are getting their panties all in a wad over Northrop Grumman building a plane under license for sale to the military, yet has no problem with the fact that there are a lot of systems the military uses that are license built such as:
HH-65A Dolphin (France)
MH-68A Enforcer (Italy)
UH-72A Lakota (France)
C-7A Caribou (Canada)
C-8A Buffalo (Canada)
C-31A Troopship (Netherlands)
C-29A (England)
C-27 Spartan (Italy)
C-23 Sherpa (England)
U-28A (Switzerland)
UV-18A Twin Otter (Canada)
UV-20A (Switzerland)
T-45 Goshawk (England)
AV-8 Harrier (England)
B-57 Canberra (England)
Some of the Navy’s sealift capability is foreign built.
The Coast Guard’s motorized lifeboat is made in Canada
The armor on the M1 Abrams tank was developed in England
AGM-119B Penguin Anti-Ship Missile (Norway)
AT-4 M136 Anti-tank rocket (Sweden)
M11XX Stryker IAV (Canada)
RG-31, RG-33 MRAP (South Africa)
LAV-25 (Canada/Switzerland)
M777 Lightweight 155mm howitzer (England)
M119 105mm howitzer(England)
M120 120mm Mortar & the M1100 trailer (Israel)
M9 Beretta (Italy)
M11 Pistol (Germany)
MP5 Submachine gun (Germany)
M240 Machine gun (Belgium)
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Belgium)
M3 MAAWS (Sweden)
Small Emplacement Excavator (Based on a German Unimog truck)
M93 Fox NBC recon vehicle (Germany)
Interim Vehicle Mounted Mine Detector (South Africa)
Hydrema 910 Mine Clearing Vehicle (Denmark)
High Mobility Engineer Excavator (German unimog based vehicle)
Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (South Africa)
M10XX FMTV (Austria)
XM104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge (German designed bridge)
M973 SUSV (Sweden)
M326 120-MM MORTAR STOWAGE SYSTEM (England)
The armor for the Stryker is made in Germany, the weapon station is made in Norway, the tires are Michelin (a french company).
I guess it’s OK for all the ill informed KC-45 bashers on here that all of the systems I listed above are all license built here (like the Northrop Grumman KC-45 will be) or outright aquired from foreign companies?
Might also note that MDC was doing business in China before being kidnapped by Boeing.
And, If Lockheed was still in the commercial AC business, they'd be there just as heavily as the big two.
They are giving china the knowledge and skills to improve their aircraft manufacturing.
It’s the same as selling them weapons.
Now they have the facilities, and skills needed to produce long range bombers and transport aircraft to pose a greater threat to us and our intrests in the Pacific theater.
I have not started calling you names, so I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Question: WHO is tha parent company of Northrop Grumman? Who makes the ultimate decisions for them? Hm?
She was part of Boeing’s first attempt to secure the tanker deal.
Another paid Boeing cronie Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), a strong Boeing supporter who was once employed by the Chicago-based company using his position on the House Intelligence Committee pushed to have the CIA investigate Airbus.
Tiahrt, who as a former Boeing employee is eligible to receive a company pension when he turns 65.
It is you that has a blinding bias, not me.
I doubt you’d know what the real world looks like.
Fogleman resigned. Payton has not.
I’ve worked acquisition. I also understand military discipline. If the President has decided XXX F-22s are enough, then ACC & the USAF have no business trying to go around him.
Congress controls funding. If you don’t think Congress can tell Payton to shut up and color, you are wrong. Think about the C-130J - a plane the USAF didn’t want, but bought anyways. That was Trent Lott’s doing, not the USAF’s.
I never worked in the Pentagon, but I’ve known plenty who have. One man’s bullying is another man’s proper civilian control of the military.
And if you don’t think firing the CSAF had an impact, you aren’t very clear on how the military works, either. I didn’t approve of Gates’ action, but I’m certain it had an impact.
And?
Components for the Northrop Grumman KC-45 are not being made there, BUT components for the Boeing KC-767 are.
I doubt you’d know what the real world looks like.
As you say on your home page, you're not here to make friends. Why not take your insults elsewhere and not make friends there.
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.