Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??

[bert]

There is potential for a lot more ugliness for Boeing beyond this contract: it has been looking less likely that they will keep CSAR-X with every new development.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gao-re-csarx-recompete-the-contract-03082/

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2008/02/pentagon-ig-to.html

And listen to HJ on this, he is speaking truth.

 

[Pugs]

Government is obligated to debrief Boeing and it will come out what the source selection team used to determine the winner.

And almost certainly Boeing will sue based on some issue documented in the source selection. Having sat on source selection boards it's a huge PIA to document all the decisions knowing that they'll just be used against you if it's of any size at all.

 

[bert]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Penalties-for-Unwarranted-GAO-Protests-04755/

I thought it was interesting that an AF general felt the need to advocate punishments for protesting contract awards right before this decision came out.

This is the same general that got spanked for stepping off the reservation over F-22 requirements (well, as "spanked" as a four star gets, anyways) The below link is to his F-22 comments:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...rce15feb15,1,5409898.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[Flash]

On top of the contractual issues that HJ has pointed out, the KC-30/KC-45 had a bigger payload in terms of cargo and fuel (20% more) than the KC-767 proposal. The only big hits that come to mind agains the KC-30 is heavier and has a longer take-off roll at weight, limiting it to fewer fields than the KC-767. As someone familiar with USAF ops though, they rarely deploy their tankers to outside their 'happy places' (ie: huge airfields with a lot of support).

I am a great fan of Boeing but it appears that the more capable plane won this time around. I would not be surprised if the buy was split though in the next round, especially if Boeing possibly offers up the 777 (a bit big) or the 787 (may not be able to due to the tight tolerances of the airframe).

Boeing data on KC-767:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf

Airbus data on KC-330:

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/performance/specifications.html

 

[navy_or_bust]

I think it might have to be with the fact that congress will not increase their budget for the 22's. They are creating trouble in hopes to change that. Just a though.

As for Airbus, I was talking to a student who took a class about aircraft incidents and most in the cases they looked at where airbus. Mostly because they are fly-by-wire system, which locks the control in neutral position when in autopilot and the controls set limitations on things such as pitch and bank. Really just sounds like a crappy control system design by them, something that most pilots especially air force pilot would not like.

 

[HeyJoe]

More on selection criteria used and changes made in close.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

I think this is a travesty! If the American government doesn't support American business, who will? The auto industry is in shambles, and now we are sending 40% of a tanker's production overseas when 100% of it could have been made here in the US? Yes, Mobile AL got 2500 new jobs. But it would have brought 9000 to Seattle. Not to mention it would have saved the 767 line. I know the military and congress ONLY work on the all mighty dollar, but they won't have anything to govern or protect if we allow the country's businesses to collapse.

Unbelievable!

 

[HeyJoe]

A little insight on DOD Acquisition official who made final call on USAF Tanker decision.

Note: the Honorable John Young is former Navy Acquisition Executive

 

[Recovering LSO]

I'll ask the question again. Does anyone know if this 'new' tanker is going to have Navy friendly hoses and soft baskets or is it just a newer fancier "Iron Maiden"?

 

[UMichfly]

I'll ask the question again. Does anyone know if this 'new' tanker is going to have Navy friendly hoses and soft baskets or is it just a newer fancier "Iron Maiden"?

I think this has what you're looking for, specifically the third paragraph.

 

[HuggyU2]

Just N-G's track record on Global Hawk should have disqualified them. If they manage the Tanker program like G-H, we'll be spending a bunch of American dollars more than we should.

 

[snake020]

I know the military and congress ONLY work on the all mighty dollar, but they won't have anything to govern or protect if we allow the country's businesses to collapse.

That's all we need right now, our tax dollars to contribute to sending more of our money out of the country. How long before the exchange rate is $2 per Euro?

 

[STLEngineer]

Would France have awarded a contract to Boeing, even if it had a slightly better aircraft? Would Germany? No, they'd protect their industries (as seen with the Airbus/Boeing spat). Why are we not? The fact that they call this a "Northrop Grumman" plane is completely rediculous. EADS has already sold them to other countries, and one of thier big arguments is that they were offering a "production" system.

Also, I don't get that we're sending money to France. Doesn't the French government own like 15% of EADS?

 

[East]

Boomstick

 

[Cobra Commander]

I'm suprised that no one has brought up the fact that losing this contract isn't a big deal for Boeing. Would they have liked to get it? Of course. Is this going to really hurt them? No. Some of you have been listening to too many stupid politicians when you should have been reading the WSJ.

Air Force acquisitions official Sue Payton:"Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government."

At the end of the day, that's all that matters.