Surprise! GAO sides with Boeing in tanker dispute
posted at 5:37 pm on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
And this one really is a surprise. The GAO rarely interferes with a decision on a contract award, and usually has even less inclination to do so on military contracts, where the Pentagon’s expertise creates a large benefit of the doubt. However, today the GAO upheld Boeing’s challenge to the award of a new refueling tanker to Northrop, which could press the Air Force to put the project back out for bid:
In a surprise move, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld a protest filed by Boeing of the Air Force’s decision to award a $40 billion contract for its new midair refueling tankers to rivals Northrop Grumman and EADS North America.
The GAO decision all but ensures that lawmakers who support Boeing will pressure the Air Force to reopen the competition. The Air Force is not bound by law to follow the GAO’s recommendations, but it is customary that the Pentagon heeds them.
The GAO said it had determined the Air Force had made “a number of significant errors” that led to its decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman.
The decision vindicates not just Boeing but its supporters in Congress, which demanded an investigation after the contract went to the partnership between Northrop and the EU-based EADS. That followed a tortured history of back-dealing and corruption on the part of Boeing that helped create the opportunity for Northrop. No one really came off as a hero in this instance, but it did provide an excellent look at the sewer of defense appropriations, especially after the big consolidation among contractors in the field.
If the Air Force cancels its award and rebids it, the decision will have a multitude of ripples through economic and diplomatic circles. The US wants to compete for defense contracts in EU countries, and the award to EADS (which produces the Airbus) showed that we would open our markets as well. A switch to Boeing now will make the Europeans believe that American politicians will never allow for significant openness in our market and will almost certainly push the EU to adopt protectionist measures as well. If the Air Force doesn’t cancel its contract with Northrop/EADS or once again snubs Boeing, Congress will inevitably haul the procurement officials into hearings to explain their decision.
What seems to be lost in all of this is which aircraft best meets the needs for the Air Force. Maybe another round of bidding will focus more on that trivial issue than nationalism, influence-peddling, and political intervention. Then again, why should this procurement decision be different than any other?
Update: Corrected spelling of Northrop; sorry for the earlier error.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hate to go OT, but did you see the Drudge headline? House Dems are calling for the nationalization of refineries.
amerpundit on June 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Ed – hate to nitpick, but the name is on my paycheck, so I gotta: it’s Northrop.
Hannibal Smith on June 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Well, according to Boeing at least, the errors made where that their aircraft was much better and less expensive than the Northrup/EADS one. With the price of oil, it is also much more fuel efficient.
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Hannibal: Northrop Grumdmand ;)
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I, for one, think it’s an extraordinarily bad idea to “offshore” the production of major weapons systems. Yes, air refueling tankers are considered weapons systems.
If we ever had to engage in a WW2-style military build-up, we’d be screwed…we simply don’t have the domestic capacity, and letting Airbus have this major contract would further reduce Boeing’s capacity. They’re the only major aircraft producer we have left.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Oh, and didn’t Lockheed Martin submit a bid?
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM
There were shenaningans from all sides, but the requirements of the craft were changed, without full disclosure. Otherwise Boeing would have offered a different type of craft, which is already available.
If reopened, all that would come to light.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
To clarify, they’re the only one left producing both military and commercial aircraft.
I’d love to see Northrop get a major deal to produce the whole damn thing.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Shenanigans, that is…I love the word too.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
If I’m not mistaken, LM is part of Boeing now.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
That will never happen.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
The Euroweenies already subsidize Airbus. Why should we gut Boeing to make a show of fairness to the Europeans who will never open their markets to us unless forced?
These contracts have always been rigged. My wing commander went to the Air War College when Curtis LeMay once spoke, giving the real deal behind history. LeMay said that when the bid went out to build the F-111 swing-wing fighter, McDonnell Douglas made the lowest bid. When that bid went before LBJ, he said, “Try again.” The contract was re-bid and MD made the lowest bid again. “Try again,” said LBJ. This time, General Dynamics of Fort Worth, TEXAS got the clue and made a ridiculously low bid. “THAT’S IT!” cried LBJ, a good ole boy from Texas, and awarded the contract to the lowest bidder, who later jacked the unsustainable price up.
“And we still fly that maintenance pig,” grumbled LeMay.
Tantor on June 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM
You’re right…’cause they don’t have the capacity. I think they still have the engineering expertise.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Lockheed Martin is part of Martin Marietta (thus, Martin)
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:10 PM
flipflo, capacity or not, it’s more a matter of technology, combined with politics, greasing all the wheels..
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Self-correction…maybe it’s McDonnell-Douglas that’s part of Boeing now. Not sure what LM is producing these days.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Sorry, s/b flipflop :(
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
You’re right. McDonnel Douglas is now part of Boeing.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I agree with flipflop on this. Some things have to be kept in-house. And if US companies can’t compete to supply other countries with arms, that’s just fine with me. Tough enough to keep the technology away from the Chicoms and others even when it’s kept in the US. Would love to see a cleanup of the cesspool that is military contracting, though. Could be a good issue for McCain.
boko fittleworth on June 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
The other thing that gets lost in all this is that the USAF tanker force is in utter crisis due to airframe age. Each day that passes without a replacement for KC-135 is another day where the odds of losing a tanker crew are dangerously high. If procurement weren’t in disarray (in large part due to these absurd contests of virtually every procurement decision made anymore), a new aircraft would already have been fielded. With hijinx like this derailing the process yet again, it’ll be a miracle if anything new reaches service in the next eight to ten years.
Maybe if Boeing’s lobbyists and Washington state’s federal legislators were required to take KC-135 rides every day until somebody’s KC-30 is fielded, they might gain some much-needed perspect on the potential human costs of the service delays they’re creating.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Self-correction, Martin Marietta became part of Lockheed Martin, when the two merged…
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Boeing!!!!
(Disclosure: I own the stock…but this has nothing to do with my choice…;-) )
aquaviva on June 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
And that’s McDonnell Douglas. I think we got it now :)
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
No. McDonnell Douglas was absorbed by Boeing. Lockheed Martin remains a Boeing competitor.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
True, but a bidder’s production capacity is part of the selection criteria.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Is there ANY lingering doubt now that ALL of this crap is politically motivated.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Blacklake, you’re right, it merged with Boeing in 1997.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Ewwww….
/gets out the popcorn
You know McCain was all over this whole deal… which is why Boeing was in trouble in the first place…
Even though their aircraft can fly from MANY more runways worldwide, which is the part of the cost the GAO looked at, but the Air Force kinda sorts conveniently forgot about.
You know, the kind of runways we use for fighters?
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Well, there’s still the KC-10, but I don’t think there were a whole lot of those produced, and it’s a pretty old airframe, too.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
This will tea off the Europeans and some Americans, and make a lot more Americans happy, and employed. It will also make nervous a few of our congressmen, and delight a lot more.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Not only is it not necessary for tankers to fly from the same airfields as fighters, it’s not always desirable.
I was at Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany during the Kosovo thing in 1999, and there were scads of tankers there flying refueling missions for fighters based out of Aviano in Italy.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM
It will tweak McCain into the most unimagineable pickle. Even a hearing, without redoing the contract will get him entangled in strange webs.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I can’t wait to see how the Messiah will sort this out, in an election year.
On the one hand, please the rest of the world, on the other they don’t get to vote. This is going to be fun.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM
By the time we get this thing figured out, the Air Force will be flying jets fueled by anti-matter.
Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Given that Northrup doesn’t even have an assembly building for the aircraft, how can it be expected to assemble anything on a timely basis. Wouldn’t the early units have to be produced in Euroland? What are the odds that any U.S. company would ever get a Euro defense contract these days? Bid maybe, get, no. They build their own defense aircraft now and have for some time. I’m also not impressed with Airbus’s history of producing planes at the promised time. If the DOD has a compelling reason for the Europlane, I’d be willing to listen. If they are just pissed at Boeing or have been bought off, that’s a different story.
Laddy on June 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
w00t! GO BOEING!
KSgop on June 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Laddy, Northrop doesn’t have the production capacity and doesn’t plan to re-establish it. The EADS plane would be Airbus through and through, made by Frogs in Frogland.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on June 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Maybe you aren’t familiar with the F-35 project.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Yeah, thats a nice tactic when you are flying from an industrialized nation… problem is that you don’t always have a handy ally with HUGE airfields around.
Lets say, just for grins, we do a bombing campaign on Iran… the closer the tanker, the longer the loiter time, and the less transition time, means you need less tankers to do the same job.
It also means that they can fly from multiple airfeilds, which means if the enemy somehow damages your runway, you don’t have your entire tanker fleet suddenly out of action.
Basicly it just plain makes you LESS flexible, and less able to deploy to large regions of the world.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 6:41 PM
The KC-30 isn’t designated as a KC-10 replacement…though, in theory, the EADS plane could probably be pressed into that role in time (which is what would likely happen, is it’s extremely unlikely another type will be commissioned solely as a KC-10 replacement). If the Boeing KC-30 eventually prevails, there will likely never be an effective replacement for the KC-10. I really wish Boeing had offered the superior product in this competition, too, but they didn’t.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
As an Air Force Resrevist and Air reserve Technician who handles KC-135s for a living, I’m all for the Northrup Tanker!
NATO has sevral of the Northrup Tankers and our Air Force and Navy aircraft have trained with and refueled from these Tankers.
The word from our pilots who have dealt with the Northrup product is “Fantastic!”. Especially the Navy, whose aircraft use an probe to attach to a re-fueler’s drogue and basket.
The Norhtrup product employs software in its refeuling program that literally flies the receiving aircraft’s probe directly into the drogue and basket assemblies, thus taking a heck of a lot of stress and time off the receiver’s pilot
and the refueling procedure.
The Boeing contendor has one boom, that requires the installation of a hose, drogue and basket, while the Nothrup Product has a boom that extends from the refueling aircraft, plus a drogue and basket reel that extend from under the aircrafts wingtips.
The Nothrup Product is readily available NOW! Straight off the shelf, which is a huge advantage. While Boeing is well aware that it did not develop a Tanker that met the Multi-Force (US Navy, Marine and allied) Avaiation requirements.
Jack.
Jack Deth on June 18, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Some more details from an admittedly interested source:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008004116_webboeing18.html
pedestrian on June 18, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Either way would’ve created jobs here in America. The parts would be built in Europe (or Asia as most things are these days) but the plane assembled here in the U.S. with the EADS deal. If it went to Boeing, then obviously it would’ve been built in the States. I’m a bit biased toward the American co. (Boeing) but I just want the better plane for our forces.
Yakko77 on June 18, 2008 at 6:52 PM
That’s not a very good example. If we do a bombing campaign on Iran, there will be many large and sophisticated airfields available from which the EADS jet could fly.
Alternatively, suppose there’s a flare-up with China over Taiwan, or elsewhere in the Pacific rim. The limited payload and range of the KC-767 would prove a detriment to keeping aircraft re-fueled over the large distances involved (granted that this apparently was not a requirement of the KC-X proposal, it’s not a bad base to have covered).
Ultimately, there is only one argument to be made in favor of the KC-767: It’s American. So if you think it’s a good idea to start rewarding American defense contractors for offering below par equipment relative to that enjoyed by the rest of the western world (virtually all of whom are going with EADS here), so be it (with my condolensces beforehand to the families of any KC-135 crewmembers who may perish during the delays created by Boeing pitching its fit). Personally, I think that’s a dangerous new precedent.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I’m entirely with you on the benefits on the Northrop/EADS tanker. But dude, it’s “Northrop”!
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:55 PM
That might be true Ed, but I would feel much better if we allowed the French to make their military aircraft and we American’s made our own military aircraft. The idea of internationalizing your source for military hardware just seems beyond dumb to me.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Yes, McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing circa 1998.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM
LOL, so I guess you never carried the wonderful M-16?
It aint nothin new…
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Funny how that never came up as an issue when McCain scuttled the Boeing award for political reasons. It was all about business process with McCain not the best fit. Runs true to form for McCain- a career politician more interested in the hardware than the forces that employ it. Just look at how much money he gets from defense contractors and related corporations.
Speaking of McCain and the military, whatever happened to the rabid cadre of McCain supporters that screamed we had to vote for McCain since he was a POW. They seem to have gone completely underground these days.
highhopes on June 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I worked avionics on the F-111D at Cannon AFB New Mexico about twenty-five years ago. Oh yes, maintenance pig indeed!! We would work it about three days to get a flight hour.
I actually flew an F-111D for about five minutes once. There was low moral at the 524 AMU so they did a drawing out of a hat for a few “incentive flights.” My name got picked and a pilot took me up in one for a little over an hour.
I’ll never forget the pilot’s instruction to me before we took off. You see, the F-111D does NOT have an ejection seat as such. Instead the entire capsule where the pilots sit side by side separates from the aircraft and come down on a giant chute, or at least that’s what is suppose to happen.
In reality it didn’t work very good. The rocket motor that is suppose to move the capsule away from the aircraft during ejection was underpowered, thus lots of pilots have been killed ejecting from F-111′s.
In the pre-flight brief before take off, the pilot showed me the ejection handle to pull in case it was needed, I already knew that of course, I worked them everyday. But what was funny is he told me to make sure he was DEAD BEFORE I pulled it.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I understood that Boeing based their proposal on the 767, which met the original requirements and was cheaper than Airbus, then the Air force changed the requirements to include the Airbus,
which is a bigger plane with better range and capacity, and also longer runway requirements.
Boeing says it would have bid a tanker based on the 777 with the new requirements.
I have also read that the (current and available) Airbus tanker is an excellent, and proven, aircraft with excellent refueling systems.
Politicians have lots of reasons to favor Boeing:
Balance of payments. Balance of payments.
Also national prestige and strategic sourcing.
Oh, and did I mention our sagging economy??
fred5678 on June 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
None of this would have been an issue if Boeing didn’t screw up sooooo badly in the Tanker lease fiasco, oh about 10 years ago.
Rhinoboy on June 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Boeing’s 787 is 3-4 years behind schedule, with another year now added on before it rolls off the assembly line. Y’all say why outsource and I say why have only one provider?
What do we need a tanker for, anyway. We’ll be running out of fuel before the first one gets delivered.
Tom
marinetbryant on June 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
So a company wins a contract fair and square because they have the better product, and Congressmen in bed with the losing company twist enough arms to get the GAO to say no deal. To borrow a line from Dan Abrams, this is another reason why America hates Washington.
SoulGlo on June 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
You really think national prestige, balance of payments, strategic sourcing, and economic benefit were really part of the considerations here? (serious question)
I honestly get the sense that this decision process was mostly driven by which set of politicians can brag to constituents about boosting their credibility in bringing the bacon to the home districts.
McCain is responsible for getting Airbus a seat at the table. It was his efforts, not the Air Force, who changed the rules midstream so that Boeing wasn’t the only competitor. I’m not sure the Air Force really ever wanted the larger plane as part of their fleet. It backfired on McCain when the contract was awarded to the foreign company.
Some may laud his efforts at encouraging competition but I don’t in this case for the simple fact that he did it for political reasons- not because he thought the Air Force was getting screwed.
highhopes on June 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Ya got it backwards. McCain forced the Air Force to change the rules midstream so that he could screw Boeing over in favor of shall we say “friendly” competition- friendly to McCain that is. I suspect the “significant errors” in awarding the contract is this mid-process flip in requirements. It is only fair they start over again.
highhopes on June 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Oh! We’ll still have fuel. The Air Force simply won’t be able to afford the cost to fill up the tanker.
highhopes on June 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Go read what the GAO said… it was not a fair and square competition… and that was the problem.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
From the Seattle P-I:
Sounds this this was anything but a “Northrop/EADS winning the contract fair and square.”
Well done on the protest, Boeing.
e-pirate on June 18, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Some random thoughts: I’m pretty sure the French are not flying anything we have made…Europe built the Eurofighter because they did not want to buy our stuff. They wanted to develop their own manufacturing and technology base…They have sued Microsoft numerous times over the so-called monopoly status which got started by Clinton’s Justice department…At last note, Microsoft has been ordered to share its programming codes. Airbus has been criticized numerous times over the years for receiving government subsidies that make for unfair competition in the commercial aircraft market. And finally, why should we reward Germany and France for turning their backs on us over Iraq?
Nozzle on June 18, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Ed, I know next to nothing about this fiasco, other than what we’ve all read here about the original lease shenanigans (h/t Entelechy), and the distrust and anger that this bred in some quarters (read: McCain) against Boeing.
But I take issue with the posture that the EU might question whether our markets are open to their manufacturing. If there is a single country on earth who can demonstrate being any doubt that its markets are open to outside economies, it is the U.S.
Entire political campaigns are based on the suggestion that it will be the end of us. That’s not to say the EU won’t be pissed, and understandably so, but that argument won’t hold up.
Jaibones on June 18, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Good Lord. Beyond any doubt…
Jaibones on June 18, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Such high drama…The air force is still flying the BUFF without all the histrionics you associate with the KC-135. Its over fifty now isn’t it? The Navy and Marine corps flew the A-6 until the wings fell off. They bought new wings and flew some more. The tanker is a pretty low stress platform. I don’t think the wings will come off for decades yet…Fly em till the wings come off!
Nozzle on June 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM
make your case for why we’ll be better off with Obama
otherwise why bother arguing with prom queen conservatives?
windansea on June 18, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I sense biases, for reasons that are less technical than maybe employment of self, or families.
This is absolutely correct:
GAO is very thorough, and Boeing would have never contested if the points listed in this entire comment wouldn’t have been strong:
Jaibones and Nozzle made good points, especially that our manufacturing is almost all outsourced, and the Europeans could care less about giving us any priorities.
I resent most that Airbus is government subsidized, which doesn’t make it a fair bidding process. It’s similar to the former Olympics, when Nadia Comaneci & Co. were subsidized by the USSR and its satellites, competing against other private world citizens.
It’s not even clear if this will go beyond a hearing, but a congressional hearing is now in the works and will expose a lot of facts, political, technical, financial, and otherwise.
I love that it will put both McCain and Obama into a precarious and very delicate and complex position. It could decide a lot, even if Boeing doesn’t get the contract.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM
The re-engined KC-135R has a lot more power than the old “steam jet” KC-135A that used 550 gallons of demineralized water to attain enough thrust to get airborne. Right now the flyable 135 fleet ranges from 1957 – 1964 manufactured tail numbers and it is just a matter of time before the wing’s fall despite the improvement made to the aircraft before they received the new engines.
The Air Force in all its wisdom only bought 60 tails ranging from 1979 model through the mid-1980s. Currently only 59 are left having watched one burn to the ground on 17 Sep 87 at Barksdale AFB, LA. I was supposed to be pre-flighting the one next to it but thank God the crew bus was 15 minutes late that day. We are long over due in rebuilding the aging tanker fleet and this further delay is just going to aggravate the problem until we start losing crews like we did thanks to the under powered J-57 engine in the KC-135A aircraft, but the fighter pilot mafia had to get their new toys first while breaking the Air Force by dumping manpower to pay for F-22s.
KC-135A/Q and KC-10A Boom Operator
KC-135A on June 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Here’s the trick.
The Airforce put out their design requirements, and when it comes to meeting the requirements, boeing had the better plane.
the arguement is that if the airforce wants something completely different from what it requested… then the airforce should change their requirements and gve the companies making their bids a chance to build the plane the airforce wants.
it’s like a rifleman coming to an archery competition and the judges saying wow, guns are better than bows. Of course, the archer that came prepared for archery and not firearms is going to be angry and at the very least demand the opportunity to go grab a rifle. that’s how I see this dispute.
Now me… I don’t know why their building on the 767 frame when a KC-787 would be a phenominal concept.
Jones Zemkophill on June 18, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Not only did they change the requirements in mid stream, which is totally against all they’ve done before, and are allowed to do, but they didn’t disclose all of them, until late. Again the GAO wouldn’t even have looked at this, if it didn’t have merrit.
Jones Z. they don’t have to build a new plane – Boeing has it, but offered the smaller one, per original requirements.
The Airforce doesn’t have to go with GAO, but the hearings will expose a lot, domestic, foreign, left, right, congress, senate, presidential contenders.
The timing is an absolute beauty. It’s substantive as defense, the Airforce, macroeconomics, global economy, alliances, jobs at home, nationalism, shenanigans, games they all play, EU games and partiality, conflics, friendships, will play a big part. Pickle one can love in an election year. I don’t think Messrs McCain and Obama are happy about it.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Oh, amen to that, multiplied by Boeing’s innate corporate arrogance and corruption in the ‘bidding’ process. As for…
…thank God he did. I offer a short lesson on that HERE.
One more point I take issue with:
How about that ‘sagging economy’? Is that only TRUE in Seattle or is the rest of the country allowed to have a shot at an aviation boom? This deal is so all encompassing that the ENTIRE Gulfcoast region is completely behind and gearing up for it. The projected economic impact in the Pensacola/Panhandle region alone is staggering, considering what we have NOW. (Pretty exciting to have something besides FEMA dollars sustaining things.)
We ALL feel like it’s the start of something wonderful for the entire region.
tree hugging sister on June 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
It is when it comes to combat and combat support aircraft.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM
You are wrong. They have purchased Grumman E-2C Hawkeyes for use from their aircraft carrier.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM
The B-52 is frankly a much more robust airplane, though it too is demanding in terms of maintenance. The commercial 707-based airframes of the KC-135 fleet don’t hold up as well, and the demands being made of the B-52 in support of current (and any foreseeable) operations are very small relative to those made of the tanker fleet.
Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Make that 670 gallons of de-mineralized water. ;)
KC135Q Crew Chief
Maquis on June 18, 2008 at 10:54 PM
The KC135 is the prettiest aircraft I know, but having worked the tired beast almost 25 years ago, I can say that a replacement is beyond overdue, and this endless political paralysis is giving me a headache.
Buy something dammit, and fast!
Maquis on June 18, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Wow, I see alot of Obama supporters in this thread, including the Ass Farce procurement globalists that threw the decision to EADS as some type of twisted Dhimmi appeasement gesture. Northrop is only a shell company pimped out by EADS, those that think Northrop will actually fabricate this airframe are Obama minions or have their heads firmly tucked into their arses. We (the U.S. of A.) dominate/rule/own the sky, there is not…I repeat not…. an aircraft of any tactical or strategic capability fabricated by anyone else on this planet that can compete with or is superior to those engineered and built here.
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 10:58 PM
tree hugging sister on June 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Most ‘impartial’ comment, yet…
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
They would have – you’ll find out more, soon.
Yes, in the past. And some big people were fired on the spot, and others suffered in big ways too. There was no cheating on this project from Boeing, as you will find out. But there sure was cheating, omitting and not following the previous rules by quite a few others.
I understand why you wish this not to change, but your argument is selfish, and not for the objective reasons this will continue with hearings. You might still get to milk the cow.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Sounds like an entitlement program!
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM
dmann, that’s why I said earlier that I see partiality, I believe based more on self-interest than other reasons.
Nothing might change, but I do welcome the hearings. I love things in the sunshine. It usually sorts things out.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Boeing doing what Boeing does best these days… whining about coming in 2nd place instead of engineering superior product.
Boeing
loses tois throughly destroyed by Lockheed Martin for the F-22, what happens next? Boeing protests… and manages to get a piece of the $200 B “winner take all” contract.Boeing’s elitist asses are handed to them once again this… let’s start protesting again along with a nice “nationalist” undercurrent. Maybe if they fired a few folks and didn’t have a unionized engineering corp in Seattle they might be winning contracts instead of whining.
burnitup on June 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM
The 777 and the 747 are too big and too big! The 787 ain’t flown yet and as a composite airframe is uncharted territory for a “gas station” not worth the wait or risk. The A330 is nothing more than a EU 767. For my $$$ its too bad the 757 line is closed, that beast knows no bounds, fits into all terminals and hauls serious-serious ass! Arguably the best airframe produced in the last 30 years.
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 11:20 PM
burnitup on June 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Check six….I think you have the F35 and F22 programs confussed…be glad your life isn’t in the balance!
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Actually Boeing should have been barred from even bidding on the tanker after the gross corruption was uncovered in 2003.
The first contract was for a lease program that was totally favorable to Boeing and unfavorable to the government. Having Tom Daschle’s wife a lobbyist for Boeing (at several hundred thou/year) didn’t hurt either. This was an obvious conflict of interest., but Sen. Daschle didn’t see it that way.
But when it was discovered the senior AF contracting officer Darleen Duryn had steered the contract to Boeing, leaked competitve EADS cost information to them and ended up working for Boeing, that the contract was cancelled. Boeing’s CEO was forced to resign, the CFO fired and sent to jail. Duryn also went to jail. The Air Force lost five years when the contract had to be rebid.
Boeing shortly before had been severely punished after they were caught stealing tens of thousands of documents from competitor Lockheed Martin on the EELV (Expendable Launch Vehicle) contract.
It’s hard to be sympathetic with Boeing. If it were any other company they would have been barred from bidding on any government contracts for 3 to 5 years.
They will eventually get this contract, they will get it the old fashioned way: by currying favor with your elected representives. But there will be unhappy faces among those contracting officials who like to do business with honest companies.
Corky Boyd on June 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Boeing loses to is throughly destroyed by Lockheed Martin for the
F-22F-35, what happens next? Boeing protests… and manages to get a piece of the $200 B “winner take all” contract.Heh.. well that changes everything. Yeah Boeing was actually on a winning team that time with the F-22. With Lockheed Martin.
burnitup on June 18, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Corky Boyd on June 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Stick a cork in it…dude!
This was Boeings fault?
How does this impact tanker aircraft?
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Facts do matter, your lack of them speaks volumes!
dmann on June 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM
So your whole argument is the mislabeling of an aircraft?
Pathetic.
Maybe you should apply for a job in Boeing’s engineering dept. They love losers.
burnitup on June 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Implying Seattle’s isn’t? As if Boeing has some inherent, exclusive right to everything built with wings, then? Sometimes you astound me with your pretentious pronouncements, Entelechy, you really do. Of course I’m an enthusiastic supporter of something that would greatly benefit my entire region, so your snide ‘impartial’ crack is just that ~ snide. (Combined with your “milk the cow”? Petty, indeed. Why always so?)
If there’s any evidence of malfeasance uncovered, I’ll also be right there to say Northrop doesn’t deserve it and to go after the bad guys hard. But I’m sure you’ll find something equally jaundiced to say about that, too.
And bravo, Corky Boyd. Well said.
tree hugging sister on June 19, 2008 at 12:14 AM
What are you so bitter about?
Only objective commentary, but I congratulate you on it.
No, I wouldn’t. Plus, it’s not jaundiced.
tree hugging sister on June 19, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Also, why do you consume yourself with reading comments that give you so much grief? Please ignore – it might be healthier for you. You find pretentious that with which you disagree. In the absence of ignore buttons, you must discipline yourself to stay away.
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM
You will not find evidence that I ever said that.
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 12:30 AM
dnann
Yes, Druyun (corrected spelling) pled guilty to inflating the price of the contract to favor Boeing and passed the EADS information to gain favor for her future employer, Boeing. Boeing willingly accepted this illegally obtained information which is a felony. Boeing promised her employment when she was evaluating the tanker contract, a felony. They participated in a felony (corrupt bidding). The Boeing CFO Michael Sears went to jail for this reason.
The point of the Lockheed-Martin information is that the tanker contract was not an ethical fluke.
Either situation would have barred a second tier contactor from governmetnt bidding for a substatial period of time. Indeed this punishment was suggested for Boeing for the their misdeeds on the tanker contract.
Corky Boyd on June 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Corky, all your commentary on the Boeing fiasco, for which people went to jail and were fired, is not relevant here, and is a topic for another thread.
If it were relevant then Boeing wouldn’t/shouldn’t even have been in the bidding of this project.
Again, whatever the outcome, come what may, the chips will fall, and it will be better for the future bidding projects.
Entelechy on June 19, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Either situation would have barred a second tier contactor from governmetnt bidding for a substatial period of time.
Boeing and its subsidiaries are not second tier contractors and thus know how and why to stack the deck in their favor.
This is an inherent part of government bidding and to hold Boeing to a different standard than GM, Hood, Alcoa or Microsoft is disingenuous at best, dishonest and agenda driven at worst! To manipulate the contract specs as to favor an external vendor for political considerations in lieu of mission capability is at least questionable if not suspect of scrutiny. (you get the $44B contract…cover us on Iran!)
dmann on June 19, 2008 at 12:54 AM
I hope you pack your own chute, this is a huge leap of faith!
dmann on June 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Really? Then where did their C-135 tankers come from? And their C-130s? And their E-3 AWACS?
They used to also operate F-8s from carriers too up until fairly recently.
firepilot on June 19, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Entelechy, you might want to read Nate Hale’s (Spook86) take on the GAO’s decision. In that light, the comments about Druyun are relevant, but not quite in the context that Corky brought her up.
Money quote:
Back in the day, while Sears was trying to land a job for Druyun, she was busy courting Boeing’s favor by throwing no less than four (4) major acquisitions over to Boeing, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. GAO’s report on her, IIRC, concluded that all four award decisions were flawed, and that two of the four had no justifiable argument whatsoever to warrant the decision.
Add to all of this the recent USAF woes regarding nuclear weapons security and incidents involving flag officers (the JAG general who had been disbarred before joining the service in the early 1980′s comes to mind).
The Air Force needs to get its house in order…stat.
Wanderlust on June 19, 2008 at 6:13 AM
The F-35 is a US project that’s being FMS’d during development, not a Euro defense contract that’s being opened up to US companies.
James on June 19, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Wow! Who knew this was such a contentious issue?
Seems to me (as a layman) that the big problem is that we have so few aircraft manufacturers in this country these days. Remember when Lockheed and Martin and McDonnell and Douglas and Grumman and Boeing were all separately making airplanes? Monopoly breeds contempt.
Naive question: Why build tankers on passenger-aircraft airframes? Economy of production, I assume. But aren’t military cargo aircraft built to higher standards, and wouldn’t they serve as the basis for tankers?
MrLynn on June 19, 2008 at 8:00 AM
Meh…I always thought they should have made a tanker version of the B-2, since you don’t need to find and shoot down a nearly invisible jet if you can easily shoot down the non-stealthy jet that keeps it airborne.
James on June 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Touche’, you are factually correct…Of the hundreds of aircraft operated by the French, a few dozen are American made…What say you of French policy wrt to the United States over say the last forty years? From lack of support for NATO to denying overfly rights to counter-votes on the UN Security council, the French have been more enemy than friend. And, while their may be some damn good esoteric arguments for giving a potentially 200B dollar contract to Airbus, I don’t see why we have go to the French and Germans to get an airplane…Not when half the world’s commercial aircraft are built by Boeing. Are you saying they don’t have the technology? Or, like many are saying, do they deserve to be punished for the actions of a few who have been punished? I’m not buying it and I don’t think the public are either…It sounds too much like we are outsourcing our National Defense…And jobs…Perception matters.
Nozzle on June 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »