USAF Tanker contract troubles...

[+Jimbib 719]

Straight from the horse's mouth

 

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123114543

[smokey799 1]

Oh come on?!!?!!! I've been watching that Gong show for I don't know how long

and the only solution Gates can come up with is 'none of the above'?

 

The USAF needs new tankers now, not in 10 years.

What a bummer.

[+Jug 99]

Oh come on?!!?!!! I've been watching that Gong show for I don't know how long

and the only solution Gates can come up with is 'none of the above'?

 

The USAF needs new tankers now, not in 10 years.

What a bummer.

Is anybody really surprised????

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Personally, I'm thinking this is all Boeing. They gets the absolute sh*ts (pardon my french) when they lose a contract, even if it's outright, and use all their influence to pressure the decision makers into coming down on the Boeing side. They're notorious for having done so here in Oz in both the Civilian and Military markets, they've done it in South Korea, they got a bad rep from their solicitations to the Singapore government and it's officials and with the KC-X program, their contender was comprehensively defeated by the Northrop/Grumman/Airbus contender. I will give them this though, Boeing puts up a good fight...

[tflash 3]

I wonder why they just didn't split the deal? It is large enough, and many civilian carriers have mixed fleets. One advantage is when there is a problem with one type, you still have the other.

[column5 62]

lol, with their machinists on strike they can't build any damn planes anyway

[+ST0RM 145]

Flew a 1957 KC-135 today and this was the hot topic during the flight. Pisses us off to no end that this hasnt been resolved yet. Our take is that they dont care until jets start falling from the sky.

 

Storm

[ironroad 218]

Flew a 1957 KC-135 today and this was the hot topic during the flight. Pisses us off to no end that this hasnt been resolved yet. Our take is that they dont care until jets start falling from the sky.

 

Storm

 

I pray it does not come to that Storm, but it seems that politicians on both sides of the fence do not give a crap until the media gets a hold of it and blows it up or Monday morning quarterbacks and pundits have had their turn to offer suggestions "after the fact." The guys in the know (whose life work is military service or procurement on the civilian side) always get shut out by those on a "whim".

 

I guess what they say is true, this country is driven by reactionary politics not preventative.

 

I just hopes this matter gets resolved quickly and discretely, because you can't expect 40+ year old airframes to do everything including fixing the kitchen sink.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

While the move certainly doesn't help the need for new tankers, it makes political sense. If it is awarded to Boeing, US tax dollars will be funding US made aircraft and putting money back into a weakened American economy instead of US tax dollars paying for aircraft assembled in Europe by Europeans putting money into the European economy. Also civilian technicians and support contractors are more likely to be American adding even more jobs to America.

 

I'm not totally sure on this, but hasn't Airbus been having troubles completing orders in the amount of time they were contracted for or something along those lines? I am not sure If I read this or dreamed it up. Also I believe that Northrup-Grumman was basically only on the project thinly in a political move to put an American name with the EADS/Airbus guys.

 

I think in the long run it will be better for the United States as a whole to have the aircraft built in the USA, while maybe not the best move for the military immediately, the United States will benefit more overall.

[FastCargo 412]

I wonder why they just didn't split the deal? It is large enough, and many civilian carriers have mixed fleets. One advantage is when there is a problem with one type, you still have the other.

 

In a word...cost.

 

Any weapons procurement (especially aircraft) requires a long logistical tail. Civilian aircraft operators may have multiple fleet types...but it's not usually for redundancy.

 

FastCargo

[ironroad 218]

In a word...cost.

 

Any weapons procurement (especially aircraft) requires a long logistical tail. Civilian aircraft operators may have multiple fleet types...but it's not usually for redundancy.

 

FastCargo

 

 

Prehaps maybe you or another person with military experience can answer this question that has always been on my mind. Why weren't more than about 60 KC-10s built? I know the USAF was doing major upgrades to the KC-135 around the time they came online, but doesn't the KC-10 have a greater capacity?

Edited September 12, 2008 by ironroad

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

Prehaps maybe you or another person with military experience can answer this question that has always been on my mind. Why weren't more than about 60 KC-10s built? I know the USAF was doing major upgrades to the KC-135 around the time they came online, but doesn't the KC-10 have a greater capacity?

 

I always sort of wondered this myself. I mean the KC-10 also carries the hose system the Navy and Marines uses so on the same mission it can refuel USAF, USN, and USMC A/C. They were doing the KC-135R upgrades at the time of manufacture of the KC-10. Perhaps it was meant to be a gradual replacement, but the end of the Cold War kind of made people making the defense budget lose their heads, perhaps acquisition of more A/C was scrapped. I don't know, but this is a good question.

[kct 5]

I don't know what our take on this, but it seems that Airbus would have plans to move A330 production to the States had the Northrop-Grumman/EADS team won the contract. The only problem would be competition from Boeing...

 

Also, it's just like some time ago that Airbuses were carried in Boeings...

[+SkippyBing 8]

Yeah, if they get the contract Airbus are going to set up a North American construction facility, can't remember where off the top of my head. So it'd actually be creating more jobs in the US economy than the Boeing proposal.

[FastCargo 412]

1) The facility that would build the Airbus tankers would be in Alabama.

 

2) KC-10s are nice aircraft...however, and JM alluded to this in another thread, 60 tankers can only be in so many places at once. So for the same reason you have small transports and big transports, so you have small tankers and big tankers.

 

FastCargo

[+Typhoid 231]

Prehaps maybe you or another person with military experience can answer this question that has always been on my mind. Why weren't more than about 60 KC-10s built? I know the USAF was doing major upgrades to the KC-135 around the time they came online, but doesn't the KC-10 have a greater capacity?

 

 

the fleets were bought with different purposes in mind.

 

The ORIGINAL KC-135 fleet purchase was to support the SIOP. Period.

 

The KC-10 was bought to support mobility deployments of fighter squadrons.

 

The current use of the tanker fleet is obviously much wider than the original intent but to answer your question - that's why.

 

That fleet of tankers is one of those key enablers that gives not just the USAF, but the real warriors in Naval Aviation our global reach and mobility.

 

To replace that fleet will actually take three increments. Since much of the KC135 fleet were newer aircraft and upgraded to the R configuration, that part can wait. The initial increment was to replace about (I think) 2/3 of the fleet of older 135's with follow on competitions for the KC-10 and then the KC-135R replacements.

 

As an aquisition decision - this is utter folly.

 

I understand the reluctance of this administration to bequeth a done deal on the next administration, regardless of which one it is. Of note, McCain has been very interested and involved in the tanker problems and was instrumental is forcing the open competition rather than the kick-back lease deal. So sticking either him or The Audacious One with a monstrous hot potato(e) would be politically sensitive to say the least.

 

However, after a horrendously costly competition and incredible level of effort by the DoD, AF and the competing teams - its all back to square one and kick the can down the road. sad......

 

As a defense contractor - I know the costs of competing, and having supported on the defense side some source selection processes, that is an incredible amount of work.

 

It would not surprise me to see various members of these teams, or even an entire team, bail out rather than go through that hell yet again.

 

This does not say much for our aquisition competence.

 

And why, before someone raises the obvious question, is it this hard to go through the aquisition process? Because that is how Congress set it up when they wrote the laws that we must follow.

[JediMaster 451]

The Boeing comment that they would rather throw in the towel was definitely a "back in your face" move to Airbus/NorthGrum after they pulled the same stunt originally. The sad fact is Boeing is the ONLY all-US contractor lead who can bid on this(although as some analyst pointed out the actual employee US/foreign numbers aren't as widespread as you might believe, something on the order of less than 1000 workers between the 2 bids because Boeing does so much overseas subcontracting anyway) so we have to have a foreign competitor.

 

Here's what everyone in industry, Congress, and Joe On the Street wants: Boeing to win in a fair and open competition with the best product, best price, and great benefit to the US economy.

That didn't happen because the original RFP was written for the 767 and when Airbus balked because they had nothing in that class and the RFP was rewritten, it now favored NorthGrum's bid. Ideally enough time should've been given originally for Boeing to be able to redo its proposal using the 777 or 787, but that belies the very reason they were going with the 767 originally...time! The politics however have now made that point moot so Boeing might as well draw up proposals for both of those options now and forget about the 767.

[+Gocad 26]

That would make sense, but you should also keep in mind that no one else is really willing to buy the 767 anymore. No contract would mean that they would have to close that manufacturing line and probably cut quite a few jobs there....

[+Typhoid 231]

"The sad fact is Boeing is the ONLY all-US contractor lead "

 

What is Northrup Grumman?

 

the fact is that both teams were heavily international. The fact that one is a US plane and the other is the Airbus overlooks that international teaming arrangement that is on the Boeing team.

 

the real sad fact is that this whole competition was hosed up from the start and now has to be done over, yet again.

[JediMaster 451]

That's exactly my point. Boeing is leading their proposal, but NG's "lead" on the Airbus tanker is a vary pale 2nd. Like I said, the real difference in workforce numbers is minor. If Boeing wins it's like 2400 US jobs and if the other wins it's like 2000 US jobs, that's it!

 

The REAL issue is which big-wig corporation is going to reap the profits. Big fat rich US execs, or big fat rich US and Euro execs? It doesn't matter to the rest of us.