No, really, it’s not. Lockheed-Martin developed the JSF for the USAF/USN/USMC. We would have bought it regardless of any FMS implications. We will allow some of our allied/aligned nations to purchase them, just as we did with the F-16, F-15, and a whole long list of other aircraft. None of these nations would have come up with the JSF program on their own and asked LM to build it for them.

James on June 19, 2008 at 2:52 PM

While it’s true that no other nation would have come up with the F-35, if you think the program is not reliant on foreign development partners (and indeed, that it would even have a chance of surviving the current political climate without them), you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

You dont really believe that Boeing would be stupid enough to recieve the specs asking for fuel capacity X, and just decide to build one with a lesser capacity – knowing it would cause them to lose the bid, do you?

Lunkinator on June 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM

And yet Northrop/EADS received the same specs and had the foresight to build one with bonus capacity. Maybe Boeing should’ve tried as hard as they did!

The problem is, they couldn’t–and neither could EADS. Neither company “built” a plane to meet the Pentagon request; rather, both offered aircraft perceived as low-risk in terms of technical development, as they were based heavily on works-already-in-progress for other buyers, requiring only (they hoped) minor changes to meet USAF specs.

The only way Boeing could’ve competed in terms of performance with the EADS product would have been to develop the 777 into a tanker, but that would have been a new plane–and hence too risky to win. Instead they did what they had to, and went with the 767, knowing that the development they already had underway on the Italian and Japanese KC-767′s would lower their development risks. EADS/Northrop did the same thing with their A330 tanker.

Both went to bat with what they were already working on. And what EADS was already working on just happened to be superior. That should be the end of the story, but in the era of Big Pork, when seemingly no Pentagon contract can go uncontested, the story will instead go on for years–until, most likely, Boeing eventually gets its way, the US taxpayer gets bilked, and the USAF gets an inferior tanker.

That’s hair-splitting.

Blacklake on June 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM

No, really, it’s not. Lockheed-Martin developed the JSF for the USAF/USN/USMC. We would have bought it regardless of any FMS implications. We will allow some of our allied/aligned nations to purchase them, just as we did with the F-16, F-15, and a whole long list of other aircraft. None of these nations would have come up with the JSF program on their own and asked LM to build it for them.

Rogue Traveler on June 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM

A 50K lb payload weighs the same whether it’s in liquid or bomb form…I didn’t give it any more fuel to carry than it’s rated to carry in bombs.

Utterly pointless? With absolute certainty.

Blacklake on June 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Asymmetric warfare is predicated upon finding and exploiting weak links in the complicated chain of events that a foe’s superior battlefield performance requires. Don’t think that Warden was the only one who could figure out that you don’t have to beat an adversary’s military head-on, you just have to find a way to keep them from employing it…the existence of IEDs and especially EFPs on the ground illustrate it perfectly.

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

That’s hair-splitting. By that kind of standard, the EADS KC-30 isn’t a US defense contract being opened up to European companies, either. It’s a joint venture between a European primary developer and a domestic manufacturer, with bulk of assembly to take place on US shores. Neither aircraft is being purchased off-the-shelf from a foreign supplier without substantial domestic contribution.

Unconventional, sure…prohibitively expensive, very likely. Impossible? Not a chance.

James on June 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Utterly pointless? With absolute certainty.

carry and receive fuel.

So do all aircraft, it does not mean that their airframes or engines can handle the constant strain of all the extra weight handled by fuel. I understand that there is a lot of room in the bay if you’d like to throw a tank in there, but filling the area with a liquid instead of a bomb will drastically increase the weight. Then to make room for a boom, avionics support equipment needed to refuel other aircraft, room for the boom operator and all the extra equipment needed to extend and retract the boom takes up more space than the B-2 can offer.

I understand the argument that nothing is ever impossible, but after reinforcing the airframe, landing gear and installing all equipment and extra crew members needed to perform air to air refueling while keeping stealth capabilities would make the project unreasonable (I believe that is a better term ;) ).

I also know that there have, rather recently, been times when a simple orbit out of harm’s way didn’t meet the needs of a battle-damaged or otherwise broken receiver and they had to fly in closer to save it.

In the scenario you mention, it has to open the bay doors to save the receiving aircraft. We both agree that it would lose it’s stealth capabilities when it opens the bay doors and unloads it’s fuel, making it as effective in these situations as a the tankers we have now. The countermeasure equipment installed on tankers and escort aircraft are more than capable of handling a couple of red zone sorties.

The force needs to revamp its process.

Boeing, and all other big companies conduct industrial espionage, and have it conducted on them. Anyone who doesn’t believe this lives in a different reality. If only we could write about Airbus’, or the specifics of the others.

If the bidding would have been conducted in the sunlight, GAO would not even have looked at it.

To be sure, there are conflicting interests and porksters from all sides, with no exceptions.

The Air Force must formally respond to the GAO recommendations within 60 days.

That will be around August 17, 2008, in an election year.

It will be a hot summer.

I’m not sure if you were serious with this question or not. Air re-fuelers do not get close to combat (be kind of silly to have the gas station where surface to air missiles can touch it) and they are usually protected by a group of fighter jets whose only detail is to make sure they don’t get touched.

I know how close they get to combat…currently. I also know that there have, rather recently, been times when a simple orbit out of harm’s way didn’t meet the needs of a battle-damaged or otherwise broken receiver and they had to fly in closer to save it.

B-2’s are not capable of being re-engineered to carry, upload and download fuel.

Rogue Traveler on June 19, 2008 at 11:25 AM

This ‘not capable’ part presupposes a lot about the airframe that isn’t supported by the reality that they already carry and receive fuel. What we’re left with is the problem of offloading, which could be accomplished by retrofitting the inner bay to accomodate extra tank space for 50K lbs of fuel and a deployable boom. Loss of stealth capability would be limited to when the bay doors are open and the boom is deployed.

Unconventional, sure…prohibitively expensive, very likely. Impossible? Not a chance.

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?

Ease of finding spare parts plays a huge role. It’s easier and cheaper to have one company supply 500 struts, than to find 5 companies to build 100 each.

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.

I’m not sure if you were serious with this question or not. Air re-fuelers do not get close to combat (be kind of silly to have the gas station where surface to air missiles can touch it) and they are usually protected by a group of fighter jets whose only detail is to make sure they don’t get touched.

B-2′s are not capable of being re-engineered to carry, upload and download fuel.

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

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.

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.

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?

What are the odds that any U.S. company would ever get a Euro defense contract these days?
Maybe you aren’t familiar with the F-35 project.

Blacklake on June 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM

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.

Money quote:

[What] the Government Accountability Office confirmed what many have long known: the USAF’s acquisition effort is hard-broke and (seemingly) incapable of awarding a major weapons contract without corruption, controversy or incompetence.

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.

I’m pretty sure the French are not flying anything we have made

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.

Boeing willingly accepted this illegally obtained information which is a felony

I hope you pack your own chute, this is a huge leap of faith!

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!)

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.

But when it was discovered the senior AF contracting officer Darleen Duryn had steered the contract to Boeing
This was Boeings fault?

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.

As if Boeing has some inherent, exclusive right to everything built with wings, then?

tree hugging sister on June 19, 2008 at 12:14 AM

You will not find evidence that I ever said that.