Is this what Boeing really wants?

The staid, paid and laid respond…!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080301224212.az5r6vht&show_article=1

All bidders’ must adhere to the requirements of the RFP or take specific exception to those items where or when they can’t meet the specification or… or where they propose significant improvements to the published [requested] RFP.

This acceptance by the DOD may have been an award with respect to the latter.

As an olde soldier who used to fly sorta’ high and very low…or relatively fast or very slow; I was always concerned that the contract for building the particular means of transporting my sorry butt…always went to the lowest bidder…?

But that’s just me…!

If Boeing wanted the contract, maybe they should have tried giving the USAF what they asked for instead of something that was only, as the saying goes, “good enough for government work”. On the plus side, maybe Boeing can shift some of those workers to figuring out why their “virtual fence” is a shoddy piece of non-functional crap.

This contract should have remained in the US for many reasons. This was a foolish and ill-conceived decision to not go with Boeing. I will definitely protest this to my congressman and senators. I hope Boeing fights and wins this decision on appeal. BTW, didn’t John McCain have something to do with preventing Boeing from getting a similar contract a couple of years ago?

I know pilots who’ve flown Boeing and Airbus airplanes, and prefer the Boeings for a number of well-founded reasons.

ET USN 71-78 on March 2, 2008 at 1:25 AM

You’re certainly free to protest the decision. Not sure how far that will get you. Boeing has said they won’t make that decision until after they’ve had a debriefing from the Air Force on March 12.

Oh, and it was Darleen Druyun that prevented Boeing from getting the contract five years ago, not Sen. McCain:

“In May 2003, the US Air Force announced it would lease 100 KC-767 tankers to replace the oldest 136 of its KC-135s. The 10 year lease would give the USAF the option to purchase the aircraft at the end of the contract. In September 2003, responding to critics who argued that the lease was vastly more expensive than an outright purchase, the DoD announced a revised lease of 74 aircraft and purchase of 26.

In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pleaded guilty to inflating the price of the contract to favor her future employer and to passing information on the competing Airbus A330 MRTT bid (from EADS). In October 2004, she was sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service. She was released from prison on September 30, 2005. The ramifications extended to Boeing CFO Michael M. Sears, who was released from Boeing involuntarily, and Boeing CEO Phil Condit resigned. On February 18, 2005, Sears was sentenced to four months in prison. Boeing ended up paying a $615 million fine for their involvement.[1] According to an issue of The Federal Times Darleen Druyun will still be receiving a federal pension.”

A little research goes a long way. I suggest you try that before your next post.

Since there are so few mind-readers visiting HotAir, you may also want to expound on the “many reasons” parts of your post.

Are you aware that the Northrop contract will employ 25,000 workers here in the U.S., with 60% of the aircraft construction done stateside? Boeing’s plane would be 70% stateside, with the rest going overseas.

However, this is a moot point that people continue to argue. The selection of the new aircraft was never about the creation of new jobs. From yesterday’s New York Times:

“At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”

And while it may be true that certain pilots prefer certain airplanes, the fact remains that the men and women flying them understand that their chief priority is to complete the mission regardless of what name is stamped on the fuselage.

The KC-45A is the plane that will allow them to do just that. Bear in mind, the competition was about five criteria: mission capability, proposal risk, cost and price, past performance and aircraft design characteristics. If “pilot preference for manufacturer” was a factor in the decision, it certainly had a low priority.

By the way, Northrop’s entry bested Boeing’s plane in all five criteria. A snippet from yesterday’s Chicago Tribune:

“Air Force officials declined to say where Boeing’s proposal came up short. However, they rated the Northrop/EADS plane superior in every one of the five categories used to assess the tanker offerings. The fact that the Air Force thought there wasn’t a single measure where the Boeing proposal was ahead suggests their chances of an appeal aren’t good,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a public-policy think tank.”

From the same article, the AMC commander sums up the Northrop proposal: “more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to off-load, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability and it can carry more patients,” said Gen. Arthur Lichte, commander of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command.”

Yeah. In America. You saying southern American workers aren’t good enough?

Given the appropriate time and training, following the relocation of experience workers from other locations, successful production will be achieved.

This is a historical fact on numerous manufacturing activities moved to the South–from autos to rockets.

Plane construction in Mobile, Alabama?

Oxybeles on March 2, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Yeah. In America. You saying southern American workers aren’t good enough?

I know pilots who’ve flown Boeing and Airbus airplanes, and prefer the Boeings for a number of well-founded reasons.

You all should be happy with McCain!

Offloading more of the military industrial base to foreign countries? Another wise decision for your tax dollars?

Plane construction in Mobile, Alabama? Large High-tech experience work crew living on that area, is there? Guess many people will be forced to relocate?

Disappointed in the lack of intelligence permeating this thread!

You say:

Typical strawman arguement.

Romeo13 on March 1, 2008 at 11:16 PM

This is in response to my saying:

…for your desperate attempt to make the chickenhawk argument…

Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM

This in response to you saying:

I happen to be retired US Navy myself, have been to the front… have you?

So, Romeo13, did you mean to make the chickenhawk argument and now are accusing me of using a strawman for bringing it up, or did you misspeak when you brought it up in the first place?

Lehuster on March 1, 2008 at 10:32 PM

ah, the evil American Corporation meme… Boeing Knew… they probably wrote it…

Yeah… right…

What Boeing probably read was the latest Fighter requirements which said they have to be able to fly from smaller airstrips… and read it into a strategy that the Pentagon has been talking about… being leaner, meaner, and much more mobile…

Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Typical strawman arguement. Overblown Hyperbole.

Accuse the opponent of making an arguement they are not making. Take it to extremes… nice… while Laughing…

Hmmm… protectionism… and what exactly is wrong with that? You do know that the whole Europeon aircraft industry is partly financed by their governments?

Quid pro quo… why should we not protect AMERICAN industry? So we can actualy defend THIS country.

Boeing knew what the requirements were! In fact, goddamn Boeing probably told the Air Force what the requirements were! Boeing was in there from day one (and even before) getting the Air Force to issue an RFP that exactly matched what Boeing intended to offer. The requirements were exactly the same for Boeing and EADS, and if Boeing couldn’t come up with a better plane, tough titty said the kitty.

Boeing thought they were going to win this based on pure political muscle – and heck, all the defense pundits thought they had it in the bag for just that reason. Too bad for Boeing it didn’t work out that way.

It just has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

“Personaly, I’m ALL for a Law that any defense related item HAS to be manufactured in America…”

That’s your position. And the military disagrees.

Perhaps all defense related “items” should be only manufactured by those who’ve proven their personal bravery at the front? Surely these are the best people and contributions of brainpower, manpower, and financial resources from others are of little consequence. Competition, meh. Free market? Old hat.

Pure protectionism and made in America will produce the best possible quality of military hardware and innovation, as Boeing has proved by rolling out an inferior air tanker compared to Northrup and EADS.

And you still, on some level, realize this A330-series tanker will be mostly built in America and the Boeing 767 would have been substantially built in Japan, a former serious enemy of your Navy’s, not?

Orcaswa on March 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Thanks, gents. Now this thing finally begins to make sense. I had wondered (in a vacuum, admittedly) why Boeing had offered the 767 over the 777.

The “buy American” argument tends to fizzle the moment you review Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA)’s continued push to outsource its manufacturing base. For the Union folks, outsourcing will always equal “bad”; however, there are usually some very good reasons to outsource other than just cost. Boeing sells its product worldwide, and must enter into reciprocal sourcing deals with its multinational customer base. In today’s airliner market, therefore, a plane built solely in America is one that sells only in America – and many of Boeing’s customers are located outside of America.

Here’s a hint: Japan is one of Boeing’s most stalwart customers. It was also one of the first countries to supply major subassemblies to BCA, years ago.

Additionally, NG/EADS are claiming significant total cost of ownership (TCO) savings on the KC-45A selection due to higher capacity of its plane over the 767 tanker. If those numbers are true, then the USAF made the right choice.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Alabama wins a fair bit of new manufacturing jobs, as do several of the so-called “flyover states”, because of its right to work laws, among other things. The same can be said for North & South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. How many overseas-owned manufacturing plants (large assembly plants, that is) have been opened in states where Union membership is mandatory?

(Answer: none. If the EU is the Unionists’ proverbial wet dream, why have both BMW and Mercedes Benz, whose home country is Germany, sited manufacturing plants in South Carolina and Alabama, respectively?)

Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Typical arguement for one who has no rational arguement…

You laugh at someone who has a LOT of experience in the DODs procurement system…

Without of course, countering what I said… because you are not talking from experience, or personal knowledge… you are the outsider trying to make a point about a system you really know nothing about…

So, tell me…. whose opinion should people listen to, a person involved with the sytem? or one who just dispareges those who were involved with the system?

Please, continue your laughing… its… amusing…

Orcaswa on March 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM

In a word: Baloney. You still haven’t shown where you are getting your information.

Have you even read the links I provided?

Boeing had already invested substantially in the KC-767 design. Re-tooling to make the KC-777 would have been far too expensive for this competition, even for Boeing. So no, it is not that easy.

Boeing hadn’t planned on the competition from Northrop. For years they thought they had the tanker deal in the bank.

They were wrong. They were wrong in 2003. And they’re wrong now.

The fact that they changed their design plan to build a larger aircraft proves that even they knew their original offering couldn’t make the cut.

Boeing has only themselves to blame for losing this contract.

Your argument that Boeing had to try to push an undersized 767 on the Air Force simply ignores the fact that Boeing could have offered the 777, which is even bigger and more capable than the A330. If size and capacity were the only issues, the 777 would clearly have been superior to the A330. The reasons the 767 was selected as Boeing’s entry were that it more closely matches the infrastructure footprint of existing KC135’s, is able to operate on substantially weaker runways designed for military jets and in 3rd world areas, and the fact that more smaller planes can refuel more fighters at one time than fewer, bigger planes.

Wind Rider on March 1, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Well said, Wind Rider.

Lets see, Commander Submarine Pacific didn’t laugh at my opinions when I worked for him… interesting that you would…

I laugh at you making the chickenhawk argument, then bringing up your naval boarding experience, in a conversation about what type of tanker the air force should use.

First, while initial unit cost per plane is an important factor, it isn’t the only factor that was likely considered. Operations, maintenance and sustainability issues were probably also studied to the point that a lot of people were probably ready to stick forks in their eyes instead of sitting through yet another meeting replete with 150 slide PowerPoint extravaganzas.

Some of these ‘extended tail’ issues were probably deciding factors, and although I thank whoever that I wasn’t subjected to the process of making the selection by forced participation, it isn’t too difficult to guess what some of the points may have been like – particularly with the ‘bottom line’ summation of citing greater capacity. Greater single aircraft capacity means fewer flying hours – i.e. use only two planes instead of needing three, or being able to use one plane instead of two, to accomplish a given mission profile. And let’s bop at least one red-herring in the snout along with that – if you need fewer planes, that’s a lower footprint at a deployed location – translating to even more ’savings’ in the cost of doing business area, and that deployment location, using planes with longer range, loiter, and offload, by no means needs to be bleeding edge forward, nor limited and austere – with a longer range, you have more choices for locations that can support something bigger, that works just fine.

As for the risk management aspects of not buying American on the basis the manufacturer’s front office locale could turn on us in a New York minute, thus leaving us in a lurch – well, it’s also a possibility that all of the molecules in our bodies could spontaneously disassemble and we end up as a pile of goo on the floor. Not likely, but possible. It would take a fairly major turn of events to turn the EU to such an extent the production run of the aircraft would be threatened. And once the aircraft is built, and in the US inventory, our vulnerability to the withdrawal of prime contractor support decreases substantially – as US companies could, and would, step up to the opportunity to manufacture, produce, and provide follow on support for these weapons systems should the need arise. There are existing examples of this in the US inventory as you read this – and the prime contractor happens, by chance, to be Boeing, but they no longer have anything to do with the items in question.

As for Boeing losing this one – too bad, so sad, try again tomorrow, and next time don’t try and short cut your way to a sweetheart deal that just ends up damaging US preparedness by delaying the replacement of a critical combat system because you dipsticks got overly greedy and chummy with upper echelon DoD procurement types. Build your Dreamliners, and maintain your skills with your civilian business. There will be future opportunities, given the age of quite a bit of the USAF inventory. That the competition was, and quite probably will be again in the future isn’t so much Boeing’s fault for being any better, faster, or cheaper to the point they vanquished all domestic competition – no, cast your gaze for who has brought us to this point, that the ‘diversity’ in the ‘military industrial complex’ is virtually non-existant towards Capitol Hill, and consider who was in charge running around spouting off about ‘the end of history’ and a ‘peace dividend’ as a reason to pare back on overall acquisition and maintenance of America’s military arsenal, thus creating the current atmosphere of ‘how’d we end up with all this old stuff we need to replace?’, and the attendant sticker shock from the need to do wholesale, fairly large immediate buy replacements.

My bottom line is – the Air Force needs a new tanker. R model -135’s and -10’s are simply too long in the tooth, although we are stuck with them for many, many more years to come. Who provides it is not nearly as important as the overall cost of ownership value and the fulfillment of the stated needs of the service – in other words, what it is they need to get their job done in what they believe to be the best manner available. Settling on ’sorta good enough’ due to what-if hypotheticals and sentiment (for a corporation that probably doesn’t deserve it) is to poorly support the airmen we expect to go out, at risk of life and limb, and protect us; and as such, it is to provide ourselves with less than the best protection we can get.

Plus, the other side of the ‘EU subsidized’ coin (no pun intended) also means this – in a way, the Euros are helping to pay for our stuff. Probably not really the case, but it does evoke a snicker when considered in that light.

Orcaswa on March 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Got any sources to back up your claims?

Yes, Boeing has delivered some KC-767’s to Italy and Japan already, but with problems. Those tankers are not the same one that would’ve been delivered to the USAF. The US variant would have been the KC-767AT “Advanced Tanker” (based on the 767-400) with a larger wingspan (for more fuel) and more capacity (heavier) than the export version.

Boeing realized their initial KC-767 design couldn’t meet the mission requirements, so they tried to make an undersized plane “bigger”, all the while singing the slogan that the KC-767 Advanced was the “right size plane”. So no, Boeing wasn’t “mislead”.

Boeing miscalculated and they paid the price for it. They’d been ramming the KC-767 down the Air Force’s throat for years.

Read the facts here