Home » Air » Top OSD Officials Think Tanker Deal Can Go Ahead

Top OSD Officials Think Tanker Deal Can Go Ahead

By Colin Clark Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 2:36 pm
Posted in Air, Policy, Rumors

UPDATE: We’ve gotten a rocket from the Pentagon, saying that John Young, the Pentagon’s head weapon’s buyer, has not decided to go ahead with the tanker rebid. However, our source on this issue advises that we wait this one out before issuing a correction. So we will. Colin 3 p.m. Wednesday

Senior Pentagon and Air Force officials who have read the full 67-page report about the tanker bid by the Government Accountability Office think they can still grant a contract before the end of the Bush Administration. John Young, the Pentagon’s acquisition czar, has reportedly drafted a letter for the four congressional committees that oversee defense spending and policy informing them of the Pentagon’s decision to go ahead and award the contract to Northrop Grumman.

There have been reports that the GAO ruling on the tanker contract could add two years or more to the contract award, something that has greatly concerned Air Force leaders eager to start building new tankers after almost a decade of trying.

“Their finding is that the full document is quite different from the summary,” issued last Wednesday, said a source familiar with the issue. The source said Air Force leaders believe much of what was challenged is “procedural” and can be resolved without rebidding the deal.

The 69-page report is expected to become public tomorrow.

The GAO said in its summary that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman” and recommended that the bid be reopened. By law, the Air Force has 60 days to inform the GAO of how it will respond to the recommendations.

Any Air Force decision to press ahead with the contract award to Northrop Grumman is likely to spark outrage on Capitol Hill among supporters of Boeing, who include Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the Nr. 2 member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, as well as Washington’s two senators and lawmakers from Kansas.

Join the Conversation

	Michael Chadwick June 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm You have GOT to be kidding me! Surely no one at the Air Force is that stupid!!
	Reader Bob June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 am As big and important as this contract is, it is worth the investment of the necessary amount of time to ensure any decision that is made is the correct decision in terms of what is best for the USAF, the contractor, and the American tax payer. A word of caution however, the true contractor is NOT Northrop Grumman (NG) as they would like you and everyone else to believe, this contractor is EADS, which is French. NG is only there to fool the American public and get attention away from this fact and to deal with the classified equipment that will be installed on the aircraft that EADS is not cleared to handle being a foreign company. It is time that NG and EADS come forward and show their true colors and what roll each will play. Their product will NOT be American made but only American assembled. It will be made in France and shipped to the USA for assembly. Boeing on the other hand has been building tanker airplanes for the USAF for over 70 years, EADS/NG has yet to build 1 tanker. That alone is something to think about and consider. Spare parts from a foreign company who may not always agree with our foreign policy or actions could easily ground the fleet if they cut the USAF off from spares. We must not forget that France would not let the USAF fly over their country when we had to get Libia’s attention for supporting the terrorists who destroyed the Pan Nam 747 over the UK. France was NOT our ali then, is questionable now and should not be trusted in the future as their actions have spoken loudly just where they stand when we needed them. It is not “WITH” the USA.
	Chieflyretired June 26th, 2008 at 6:18 am And the parts being put into all the electronics are also American made? Just the first example that comes to mind. Factories will be built in the USA to supplement what is being made in France (and other countries. NG/EADS is proposing a better product at a better price. Boeing has become complacent and depends on their political connections and propaganda more than developing a viable replacement tanker. Though pentagon acquisitions can be stupid sometimes, this one wasn’t. Give the Pentagon folks that tested the prototypes and approved the contract terms a little credit for being intelligent and patriotic, please?
	Dallin Pierson June 26th, 2008 at 7:17 am Bob, you have a very good point. I’m not sure if it is that great of a cause for concern however since EADS will be making enormous amounts of money off of this contract. I believe that like most companies, they will worry more about their profit rather than what their own government thinks of ours. Still, you are right in being cautious about outsourcing our military equipment manufacturing.
	Sgt JFK June 26th, 2008 at 8:58 am Bob, the last tanker was delivered to the AF over 46 years ago so how does Boeing have 70 years of experience? Have you read the report? Part of the reason Boeing lost was due to poor performance on contracts in relation to the current tanker fleet.(nice job Boeing — let;s reward you for that) Sounds like complacency to me. Boeing has no domestic competition for this type of aircraft so we either give Boeing a blank check to charge and perform however they want or we allow the only other builder with a chance to compete. EADS has built tankers for Australia and I believe one additional country recently (my definition of recent experience),the Tanker from Boeing hasn’t even been assembled yet! It’s derived from parts from 5 other aircraft mixed togeather.?. EADS will add new jobs to the US in their new facility — Boeing can use the people that would have been on this project to work on the 787 which is already way behind schedule. As far as security goes, I’m not a real fan of France but I don’t see them attacking us any time soon. In closing, the Airforce needs the BEST aircraft for the mission and the results from all testing show that the KC-45 is that aircraft (Norman Dicks should keep that in mind!). In fact, that worked against them in the GAO report as well. the Airforce gave them credit for exceeding expectations which they are not allowed to do. Shame on the Acquisition department for making such a mess out of this and delaying this much needed aircraft. The lives of the current crew on the oldest KC-135 airframe are in your hands.
	Reader Alice June 26th, 2008 at 9:03 am EADS is not French, and the aircraft is not built by EADS anyway : NG made its bid on an Airbus-built commercial airplane, which is built in a number of factories (the wings come from the UK for instance). The Australian are testing the refueling system on a modified A310, which could be considered as the 1 tanker you talk about. As for Boeing, I am sure you agree that if Japan or any other number of nations would rethink their alliance (allegiance ?) to the USA, the factories in Kansas and Washington would come to a stop too. The economy is global, but the source for raw materials and specialized tooling are scarce (especially sources that are willing to risk so much in those hardly negotiated contracts with the “airplane makers”). Boieng has not been building tankers for the last 70 years, its just the tanker fleet that is 70 years old!
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 9:20 am I have written everyone from the White House to the GAO to the DoD to my Senators and local House Rep to the Air Force Procurement office regarding the DEMAND of the American people to overturn this absurd, costly, and potentially dangerous (our technology going to Europe/France) decision to award the contract to EADS. I urge each and everyone of you to at least contact your Senators and local House Rep and Rep Dicks to also DEMAND the contract be awarded to BOEING where it belongs!
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am Alice and others (with all due respect), The point is not simply regarding “global trade”. The Airbus design (which is based in Toulousse, FRANCE)is much larger and more costly to operate than the Boeing 767 AND CANNOT EVEN LAND AT SEVERAL KEY AIRSTRIPS VITAL FOR THEM TO REFUEL TO PROVIDE REFUELING TO OUR AF PLANES!) Add to that, the at the last minute, the Pentagon removed a clause from the tanker contract that would have required EADS to follow the U.S. International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) Regulations. Congress enacted the rules decades ago to ensure that only certified foreign production partners of the Defense Department could obtain access to our military systems. Now not only is EADS free of this reasonable and necessary restraint, it also continues to lobby the European Union to lift its arms embargo against communist China, has engaged both Iran and the radical ant-American government of Venezuela about potential sales of armed patrol aircraft, and faces bribery charges stemming from efforts to sell hardware to the Syrians and Saudi Arabians. Regarding comments about Boeing not producing tankers, they are in final testing stage and very near to delivering the first tankers to the Italian Air Force, so the notion that they are not ready is simply uninformed.
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am And I might add to the fray the fact that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ firing of AF Chief of Staff Michael Mosely and AF Secretary Michael Wynne, in part due to inept and non-sensible contract issues (which I recently read a commentary by Mosely stating this was one of them)gives more credence to the fact that this decision is plain wrong. In addition, I have perused Boeing’s “side by side” comparison of the two refuelers and the design the USAF requested to be bid on. The designs presented by Boeing vs. Airbus (FRANCE) are completely different specs, thus making this entire ordeal absurd — not even a level playing field nor fair competitive trade practices by the USAF.
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am Anybody hear know what the volume of trade in military items is between Europe and the USA? I’d bet my house that is mostly one way to the advantage of the USA. I’ll bet the farm that it won’t stay that way once the Europeans realize that producing better, more advanced and cheaper systems then the USA is not enough to secure an order in an open contest against a USA competitor. A competitor with a proven track record of using bribery and corruption to win orders.… something for which USA military personnel and Boeing officials are currently serving time. DaveGood. PS.… Since the fabulously expensive US Air Force proved incapable of defending it’s own airspace against four civilian airliners armed with box-cutters…I’d be reluctant to allow it any more expensive toys, foreign or domestic.
	Sgt JFK June 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am SuzyQ, What kind of “High Tech” do you think is in this? The only thing that would be different from an airliner version of the airframe or the current KC-135 already used in France is the Communications gear (I’m sure all work pertaining to this would be done here) All due respect, It’s a Tanker not an F-22.
	Sgt JFK June 26th, 2008 at 11:55 am SuzyQ, You really need to read the entire GAO report. the KC-45 takes off in a shorter distance than the KC-767 with more fuel (according to the report) Boeing can’t own all widebody contracts without some kind of competition! If you want to eliminate Airbus then write Lockheed and ask them to start building airliner type aircraft. Which airstrips? Tankers are not forward deployed to tiny “fighter type” fields. Anyway, my point is: BOEING HAS TO HAVE COMPETITION! THEY DON’T GET A BLANK CHECK!
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm JFK — The GAO report states all of the flaws with the contract and since you said you read it you’d know that. And again, with all due respect — did you have access to Boeing’s submission or are privy to the detailed differences? Not trying to be argumentative, but having worked very hard at the company that developed the hose reel design, and having seen the apple/orange differences, I must protest the decision. I would just ask that before you make a decision, check out the facts, not just the GAO report. And I can’t do do your homework on “what airstrips” — I can’t explain everything to everyone.…. People are commenting left and right on what they do not even know in detail
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm DaveGood? Are you joking? It was the USAF that didn’t defend US airspace against the 911 terrorists (I assume that is what you’re referring to?) Hmmm — thanks for that brilliant insight. The rest of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation about something very important.…
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm DaveGood? Are you joking? It was the USAF that didn’t defend US airspace against the 911 terrorists (I assume that is what you’re referring to?) Hmmm — thanks for that brilliant insight. The rest of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation about something very important….
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm SuzyQ, Four civilian airliners, armed with box-cutters, in the air for hours and no USAF aircraft got within hundred miles of any of them. Very impressive performance. You know why the USAF want the KC-45 Suzy? consider the following… * Could deliver more fuel at greater ranges (30 percent more at 1,000 nautical mile (nm) radius) * Was more fuel efficient (6 percent at 1,000 nm radius) * Could perform more refueling operations faster * Featured a larger boom envelope twice the size of its competitor * Could takeoff with more fuel from a 7,000-foot runway. In airlift, the KC-45 could: * Transport more cargo pallets (32 versus 19) * Carry more passengers and patients * Met the Air Force’s ferry range requirement of 9,500 nm (the KC-767 did not) Now consider this… the USAF is quietly planning for what happens when China decides to settle matters over Taiwan. The KC-45 has the reach to cross the Pacific and help in that battle. The Boeing doesn’t. DaveGood
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Dave The USA having never been faced with the dilemna of what happened on September 11,(except for what occured at our Embassies overseas, Marine HQ’s, the USS Cole etc. and the first Trade Center Bombing for which nothing was done) it was impossible to know what was happening. And, as such, planes actually WERE scrambled but to what end? They had orders to not do anything as there was no communication or indication of what was happening. And by the way it was a matter of minutes, not hours. Seems I’m dealing with someone outside of the US, so I feel bad that you don’t have a true grasp of what happened, or how we need to protect our citizens and Military. From your answer I can only suppose you have some vested interest (monetary) with the NG/EADS/AB contract. It’s not about the $. I respectfully agree to disagree, but thank you for your input.
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm SuzyQ. I make a very poorly paid living building residential windows and doors. I do live outside the USA. And my some of my taxes are being used to fund the development of your F35. Why should my taxes be used for that, while people like you insist that anything partially built or developed by\in my country cannot be allowed to win an open competition when you have a corrupt, organisation such as Boeing offering an inferior product + bribes? Just so you know.…, some years ago, my country (UK) bought 6 Chinooks off yours. They were special, designed for special forces work, and we paid over a billion dollars for them. But because The USA refused to let us have the source codes needed to adapt them to our needs they ended up grounded for years. We use them now as flying trucks. Don’t count on the UK buying any large pieces of military kit from the US in the future. DaveGood
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Dave, Well I despise taxation and waste of spending by the government as much as you do. However, if I recall correctly, the US and UK have long been, and hopefully will continue to be allies. I think once again, we should get back to the point — people are mislead about the facts — especially country to country and the fact is, that Boeing’s design (which would help protect the UK and other countries as the US always does) is truly far superior — would you rather be “protected” by France? It is always amazing that countries love when the US protects them, gives aid to them almost unconditionally (via my taxes) yet complain constantly and hate us about any issue they can find. That makes our taxpayer dollars even more bitter to take. Regarding the Chinooks (which I can’t verify what you stated is true — hard to believe)perhaps the UK AF could come up with better technology? And as for your work status –we all make our lives what they are — I’m trying to help the USA realize that the Boeing product is superior, which will undoubtedly pass on to other countries, such as the UK
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm PS to everyone! Israel has in activities and in so many words hinted that they will take on IRAN prior to November. Can we, any country afford to be years behind the ball if this occurs? Just another consideration — we will as will the UK obviously back Israel, but without refueling we will be much less effective, if we are at all!
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm SuzyQ I copied this off a right wing conservative Newspaper in the UK. “A disastrous attempt to buy a fleet of top-grade helicopters to carry the SAS into battle has been branded a £422million fiasco by spending watchdogs. The eight Chinook aircraft were originally designed to help Special Forces fly behind enemy lines in darkness and all weathers. But the Ministry of Defence’s mishandling of the deal meant the American-built helicopters could fly only in sunny weather and above 500ft. All stood idle in hangars for six years while engineers tried to fix them.” What that newspaper the “Daily Mail” fails to report is that our original contract stated that we would have the source codes needed to integrate our systems with the computers on board the chinooks.…. but the (Republican) controlled congress decided, after we had paid the money over, to block that. Meanwhile, Israel, gets its hands on any American weaponry it wants and sells it on at a profit to the chinese. I ask again.… why should my taxes pay for the development of US fighters? And don’t worry yourself about developing better technology. We’ve realized two things.… One… America has the best weapons technology China is willing to pay for (Remind me, just how deep in debt to China\Saudi’s etc. has Bush put you guys in?) and second.…. There are far more useful things that money can be used for. DaveGood
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm There are far more useful things that money can be used for, perhaps the education of the Ministry of Defence? Keep on blaming the US, the UK rightwing etc.…… and how in the world are your tax dollars paying for the US military? Forget it — the entire point is lost — the LEFT has blinded the SHEEPle (sheep-people)for years in the US — I see it’s working in the UK.…. For your benefit, please watch FNC (FOX NEWS CHANNEL network) instead of listening to and reading the mainstream hateful garbage liberal media that NEVER shows both sides.…. my best wishes for your enlightenment. In the US we were a captive audience by ABC/CBS/NBC but since Fox arrived they show BOTH SIDES of every issue and have no political agenda.….(oh but of course the left wing cries that it does all the time since they are failing and we are being told the truth after years.……) Please, look at both sides if you have a chance..
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Suzy Are you seriously suggesting that FOX NEWS ( Owner, a former Australian who was known to belong to a maoist group while at University) is a trustworthy source of information? I mean Fox news and Rupert Murdorch are one of the main reasons all of the english speaking democracies are now trapped in two losing wars in West Asia! If you want to know how MY taxes are helping to pay for YOUR F35.…. click on the link below. YOu really do have to get yourself far informed and up to date on reality. Are you aware for example, that Rupert Murdoch ( Owner of Fox News) blocked the BBC from it’s satellite broadcasting to to china because the chinese government objected to the BBC news coverage of Tianamen Square?) And you think that guy is some sort of freedom loving democrat hero? What sort of M*r%n are you? DaveGood
	DaveGood June 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm Link below.… http://preview.tinyurl.com/4wm7vs
	Michael June 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Ohh this is too good to pass up. I am currently in the Airforce and as a air crew dog, i have spent many a hours behind a tanker getting gas. I am not a KC135 crew memeber but i have flown on the E-3 AWACS plane. I dont protest to be a great airplane expert but i am pretty informed and up todate. Enough of me, the KC-45A tanker will now be delayed even more, causeing more headaches and pain not only for the crews that fly the old (one hasnt been produced since 1965) KC-135. I read somewhere some one say Boeing hasn’t built a new tanker is false. The italians and the Japanse have each order 4 KC-767 tankers. Now Suzie Q, dont get too crazy, EADS (owner of Airbus German, French, British and Spanish)has won way more orders then Boeing for new modern tankers, not including the USAF order. Major buyers are Germany, Britian and Australia. Both are about in the same phase of R&D. I do think the Airbus is a little further along with the German Tankers in Service as well as in Canada (A310 MRTT). They are rebuilt A310 w/out booms but they can be put on the aircraft if needed. Now you ask, why this converstion, real simple. Boeing got busted big time for fraud and everything else dealing with the Tanker lease program. Boeing is not the All American company as everyone wants to think. But hey every aircraft manufacture has problems today, Airbus and Boeing alike. Now if Boeing would of been a straight shooting years ago, we would be seeing KC-767A’s on the flight lines today, but we dont. NG/EADS (not Airbus) proposed a better aircraft then 767, and Boeing got caught with thier pants down and lost. Yes the USAF has some problems too. SO here we are wih the GAO report and will be waiting years to replace 50 year old planes, that cost more and more money each year to fix and maintane. Talk about wasting tax payer dollars. Also as for the the British Chinooks, what a mess, Boeing screwed that up and would not take the broke birds back. The poor Brits got stuck with crap. Ohh and by the way, the winner of the CSAR-X program, going though a GAO report/hold as well, and who was the winner? The Boeing HH-47G. So now we who rely on Tankers to give us gas, will be waiting to see if a tanker ever shows up now. Boeing a superior tanker (KC767), i wouldnt say so, i say the wrong product, ohh also forgot as for jobs, parts for the 767 are made in China and Japan, not all American, also taxpayer dollars would go far in Mobile Al where the Tanker was to be assembled and A330F to be made.
	Reader Bob June 26th, 2008 at 6:17 pm FYI… There has been no flyoff and no USAF sponsered flight test to date of either plane. That will come after source selection and contract award. Boeing has built the KB-29, KB-50, KC-97, KC-135 and has the MDC KC-10. How many tankers has EAS built and for how long?
	Michael June 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm KB-29, KB-50, KC-97, and even the KC-135 are from by-gone era’s. Today both companies are on even grounds when it comes to building modern Tankers, proof is in the orders won in the last several years. Ohh and Boeing did not build the USAF KC-10. But yes, EADS hasn’t bult tankers until the modern age.
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pm Wow I was called a M*r%n! and asked to not go crazy… Dave, thanks for the background on FNC but I am well aware of it’s inception by Murdoch and all the other info. you so kindly provided. So, prior to FNC, the UK allowed Al Jazeer to broadcast in the UK — and until a year ago Canada did the same.…interesting.. And it is no secret to those in the US who are privy to information on every level to be able to study facts without bias (such as the BBC) are farmore educated than others if we wish to be. And Michael, I’m not going crazy — I know all about the Boeing problems, but after all, the first problem with the Boeing tanker program was an INPROPRIETY OF A USAF OFFICIAL! Secretary Gates is taking ACTION to correct the problems within our military (currently the USAF) for the benefit of the UNITED STATES and OUST those who participated. Good grief — you should be grateful that some action is being taken, as you probably as I, am fed up with these types of fiasco’s. And by the way, thank you for your service.….…..
	SuzyQ June 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm Bob, I almost missed your comment about no testing — it is in the final stages as I stated in a previous message and near readiness to deliver to the Italian AF, however, that will likely be scrapped if Boeing is not awarded the contract — a huge blow to the many MFG’s etc. who worked on the project.
	don keller June 27th, 2008 at 6:13 am Because Boeing makes tankers, its presumed they know how. I remember using Boeing airstart equipment that ran at 50,000 rpm and it blew up in my face. Fortunately it rarely worked. AirResearch produced the GTC-85. It worked. And we got excellent support. I went to work for Boeing. I didn’t like their policies, tricks, and deceit. I joined the Navy. I still don’t like Boeing. They’re all union and all Democrat. I don’t need it.
	Frank June 27th, 2008 at 9:44 am HI, I’m French and I found the different point of view very interesting. If I look in favour of Boeing I can understand that some american people want to see their national’s manufacturer to win this huge contract. However blaming France (for not allowing the usaf to fly over France during the raid against Libya)and finding risky to get supply from this Country is a very simple way to think. It’s not because we are allies that we have to follow the US international policy on every aspect. As it has been highlighted EADS is not only French, there are several European countries involved. Susy’s argument about France being not a good allie is very too simple to make american reader believe it is dangerous for getting supply. Most of Boeing planes/parts are made in japan and China… (like it has been highlight) European purchased billions of weapon, aircraft etc.. in the past during the cold War and american made billion of dollars — so why it has to be only one way. Why not America buying a European aircraft? I’m glad to see that there are many different opinions and I hope that susy’s opinion does not reflect the majority. Also the EADS deal will actually create more jobs and generate more money for the local economy than boeing deal. This forum is very interesting — regards
	NKAWTG...N June 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Wow, there is a lot of bad information flying around here. Let’s just set a couple things straight. Boeing’s tanker lease deal was killed because Druyan discussed employment with Boeing’s Sears 2 weaks before she recused herself with the USAF. This was bad enough, but when they tried to cover it up, they both got canned and sent to jail. Nothing to do with tankers or the man on the moon. But McCain hates the Air Force with every saltwater pore in his angry body and couldn’t wait to use this excuse to kill the tanker lease deal. Remember, the deal went through, to McCain’s satisfaction, that same week that Boeing fired Sears & Druyan. On another note, What is now Boeing has delivered that last 3 tankers in modern times…The KC-135, The KC-10, and the KC-767. All without “bribes” or any other BS. The team that designed the KC-10 boom systems is still in place and helped with the KC-767. They still act as 1 team and that DOES matter. You don’t think a tanker is high tech and complicated?! Then why is EADS years behind on Australia KC-330s and why is Boeing behind on Italy’s KC-767s? Just try designing a boom that can zing around the envelope at high speed then stop and perform dental surgery at will…all using remote view cameras. Please. If you don’t know anything about the companies or the technology, please don’t speculate on it here. This is a critical acquisition program and the USAF needs to get it right. At this time, only Boeing has an “awardable” proposal on the table, per GAO. NG/EADS do not. This is about to get VERY BIG on the Hill.
	Michael June 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Yup Suzy I do know exactly (well what is public )about the whole tanker problem, it was on both sides, Airforce and Boeing. Yes we all know the Pentagon has alot of work to do to fix the contract deals, for all the services, the reason the Airforce guys were canned though, is not the Tanker deal but the whole nuclear thing and i also believe because Gates is big into UAVs and the Airforce was not moving fast enough for him. But thats getting away from the Tanker deal, really if they re-do this bid with a KC-777, the USAF will never get thier tankers, there is just too much R&D that must be done, and of course that costs alot more money. 777 is a good bird, but too late for this order of 179 Tankers, when the second order comes in it can be put up for competion fpr the Tanker order, or even the third one. Don’t forget the Airforc has to order about 500 plus tankers, this is just the first phase. Also about the deal with the French, German and NATO, I have worked with these guys in the field and trained with them, they can and do get the job done, you don’t here what they do in the news here in the states. Also, the French know its not good business to not sell parts to the states if we need them, that is mute subject. Too much money involved trust me. Besides France does buy alot of stuff from us more so then we do from them (yes we have alot of EU produced and designed equipment in the US forces, more so in units you dont hear about all the time) and your welcome Suzy for my service, also to let you know i immigrated from Germany, so i do see and hear how this affects and how the Europeans think. =)
	SuzyQ June 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pm Don — I am a Republican. The fact is, having been involved in the Boeing tanker program — how many times must I repeat this? I have first hand knowledge of the differences between the tankers and have stated as many facts as I can/will. Have you compared the FRL hosereel design to the Smiths (now GE owned) design? Or Boeing’s comparison to EADS/AIRBUS? Please do before you make a snap decision. It is difficult to hear people’s uninformed commentary without having the facts. I never comment on anything without being certain, but some jump the gun.….. Sorry about your experience with the airstart equipment, deceit/tricks (your words)but this is not a case of bad business “practices”, it is a matter of national security and the best refueling tanker even for the NAVY (thank you for your service by the way)is still the Boeing design. And I ask if you can name one company whom has not been “pure” in their business practices? ONE? I’m sorry, but that’s the nature of business around the WORLD unfortunately, so let’s get back to the subject and protect our military!
	SuzyQ June 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm Michael, good response. Thank you again for your service, especially having immigrated here and fighting for YOUR new country.….. Others will just never get it and will make this into a business/commercial deal rather than a better product and slam Boeing, rather than thanking the US as the pride of Europeans is directly a result of many Americans deaths (including my great Uncles who died there to save countries such as France et al). Back to the tanker program, we are at a critical point now and pushing the program back via the EADS bid is just insane.
	SuzyQ June 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm NKATWG — RIGHT ON — I plead everyone who agrees this needs to go to Boeing to please contact every Senator in your state, every House Rep and even the White House and the DoD — I certainly have and this will be a battle all the way up the hill.….…..
	SuzyQ June 27th, 2008 at 2:57 pm Frank — your turn :-) The US IMPORTS far more from other countries than we are even allowed to export. This is not a case of country vs. country, it’s a matter of national security and the Boeing product is superior to Airbus — sorry! And in this day and age where the muslim extremists have come close to taking over not only France but many Europeans, it will once again be the US that is called upon to “save the day” if we get cooperation which has been proven to be in doubt! You are assuming that we do not want to purchase a French made “product” — well in this case, we do not. As simplistic as I may have stated my commentary regarding France, it has many complicated levels that I chose not to include them for the sake of this audience.…
	Michael June 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm Both companies are worth slamming, to a extend. they both also build good products sometimes as well. Each one has thier faults and thier costly delays. EADS with the A400 and Boeing with V-22. Also alot of little programs with hugh price tags as well. The way technology is these days nothing is cheap or without delays. I am not saying anything bad about Boeing when I say, let the first one go, work on the two other orders with a better product, the KC-777, anymore delays and now YOUR HURTING THE USAF REFUELERS. The GAO report was not all daming to the KC-45A as well as Gates hinting the KC-45A may still go through. Also dont forget you are messing with Mobile Al peoples lives as well, they are looking forward to the 2500 jobs it will create here, go to the city website, check it out. They are doing alot of stuff in the area and town and this is part of it to make thier lives better as well. Its not all bad news if Boeing loses this order for everyone. Its not all about the guys in Washington. It would be more good news for Ala Iam sure. Ohh NKATWG, the KC-10A was built by McDonnell Douglas and production for the KC-135 was from 1957–1965, the KC-10 1981–1987 (before Boeing bought MD). I dont think anyone considers these designs modern anymore. Remember you guys up there are fighting for Boeing, the guys in the south are fighting for the NG/EADS. I dont think its about the best winner anymore, if it was the winner would be making the tanker here soon.
	Michael June 27th, 2008 at 3:34 pm I dont think the Muslims were every as close as you think they were to taking over France, lets be real here, that will not happen no more then it can happen here. Also, behind the doors, NATO (including France) do alot more for the war on terror you will every here, dont mistake the Iraq mess with the war on terror, NATO does alot behind the scenes you WILL NEVER HEAR about in the news.
	SuzyQ June 27th, 2008 at 4:19 pm Michael, I know all about the Mobile Alabama situation, once again I will reiterate I am unfortunately past knee deep in this controversy but feel as if I’m in quicksand up to my neck at this point! And since you mentioned “we” and “you” in your answer, I’m assuming intuitively that you are also not a US citizen. May I state, for the record, that it’s not a matter of not hoping for jobs for those in Alabama — fine people. However, starting from ground one via Airbus equipment and training etc. etc. etc. when there is the ability to deliver at this moment in time to the ITALIAN AF why do we, the people of the US need to sell ourselves out to EADS/AIRBUS and pretend it will “create” jobs in Alabama? Jobs in every sector of business here are in jeopardy due to the US’s lack of business sense — and as a born citizen I’ll be the first to admit that. But taking jobs from one group and giving it to another to the benefit of yet ANOTHER FOREIGN country, which most people do not understand is not RIGHT! I know of vendor upon vendor upon person (both individually and as entire companies)that stand to LOSE HEAVILY as the MFG process is already a GREEN LIGHT and has been for the past several years on the tanker for the ITAL AF. And, I want the AF to be equiped with the best of the best as well as the other branches of the military, so I still don’t understand what the argument is? It is apparent that no one understands you don’t take from the right hand to feed the left hand (literally)
	Steven Skovranek June 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm This is the third wave era, not the second wave era. Our jobs should come from designing the planes and maybe the machines that build them; not building them. I heard that NATO struggled to replace several helos that were shot down.
	MESS June 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm Wow all I see is SuzyQ trying to monpolize this board with no credible facts and saying that she “having been involved with the tanker program”(COUGH COUGH!!) knows everything about it, but has yet to come up with real credible information? Well I’ve been involved with it as much as you have I suppose and have seen very few points where the Boeing aircraft is superior. Davegood made some great points above on why the NG plane is better and they are factual. Other than political rhetoric and american protectionism I have seen nothing credible that you have said? The protectionism is part is stupid because equally so the parts will come from all over the world regardless of the winner. If your involved with the program you should already know this. The job numbers are estimates and NG says they will create more jobs in the US than the Boeing, maybe high estimates on one side or the other. I’ll say no big advantage there either way. It’s the plane, the NG plane does more, carries more and has more flexibility in use. Boeing offered only what the Airforce was asking for. NG offered that and more. SuzyQ: the comment on the runway gave away your credibility.…
	Michael June 28th, 2008 at 7:55 am Sorry about that, iam stationed in Florida, so when i mean you guys, i am talking about the ones protesting the buy. And yes i am one, have been for along time, you cant still in the military after so long with out becoming one. People die everyday wanting that right, that you were lucky and born with. AS for the best, right now the Airforce thinks the KC45A is the best. Only the Airforce should decide whats best for them, not people with a invested intrest in thier product, that only taints the process of a fair and balanced run off. The Airforce decided the KC 767 does not meet thier needs. If they felt it did then they would of picked it. News flash Suzy Q, we have bought from EADS before, and we continue to buy from the Europeans. We are not selling ourselfs to them, if we did we wouldnt have a need for Boeing. This isnt a fight between them and us, its a fight whats better for the USAF and i am sorry, and you will have to learn to live with it, the KC-767 is not the right product at the moment. Unless you wear the uniform and work and on and fly what we have to fly out in the real world, you can not decide whats best for the armed services. Why dosnt Boeing fix the 787 and then for the next round of tanker run offs, offer the KC-777, i am sure Boeing will win with that. Then we can feed the Boeing hand again.
	SuzyQ June 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Well good afternoon Gentlemen, Anti Suzy/Anti Boeing — too much! The next time you step foot on and fly on the majority of any US Domestic planes, consider this — they are predominantly produced by Boeing. And every time you land safely please take that into consideration as well. No monopoly here intended in spite of your comment to that effect Mess, and I daresay you did not read once again (sigh) the side by side comparison of the 767 vs. Airbus planes — but apparently “I”, one person am now the target of the subject, rather than the facts.…..
	SuzyQ June 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Oh, and I love being called “stupid” and a “protectionist”.… I don’t lable people like that, and perhaps you can identify what ITAR is, along with naming the airstrips that the ABus will not be able to land on? I won’t do it for you. And furthermore, I never claimed to KNOW IT ALL, I’m just pointing out facts that many DO NOT KNOW. Personally I had to sign an ITAR document which was explicit that I could share ZERO info about anything to do with any US technology, which I have not. I’m only trying to point out what needs to be done in this case.
	SuzyQ June 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm Michael, No sorries necessary. Your sentiments are very well intended about the AF knowing what they want/need. And I also know about the FCS programs that will be in cooperation with many countries in Europe and otherwise and was exposed briefly to those programs (the next generation of military equipment including UAV’s etc.) and we will have a need to work together developing those systems. However, at this moment in time, we are at a crisis stage, again, given the Iran/Korean threats of nuclear armaments. I was never the one to bring up POLITICS in this discussion — I only answered those who did and asked them to get back to the subject of the tanker program. So, I am neither ignorant of the fact that we have already done business with EADS and MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.….. but can we please focus on this particular issue instead of personal attacks?
	SuzyQ June 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Goodness — sorry for the so called monopoly Mess but I just realized that you “caugh caughed” at my “involvement” and yet you at the same time stated “Well I’ve been involved with it as much as you have I suppose” — that is funny since you put me on even ground with you at that point — my intention is not to insult you — I just find it funny when people state things that are so, well, I do it myself (guilty as charged) absurd and burn themselves.……Again, back to the subject — I just needed a little laugh
	SuzyQ June 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm Mis-spelling COUGH yikes!
	Frank June 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am I have to say I agree with Michael, who I think highlighted well that this a matter of what the USAF thinks is the best for her to fulfill its missions. However I have to say that I’m not involved in this program and therefore like many people do not have the full picture to appreciate which deal is the best. I don’t think Susy you should take things so personnaly like an “attact” to you; you have no prob to say that we don’t what we are talking about. I can understand that as an American citizen, you would trust only US made equipment under the name of national security. I respect that point of view if I was American, I would be certainly disappointed to see a European manufacturer winning such a big contract over Boeing. But for example in France, as a tax payer I would have rather prefered to see a F-18 Hornet deal in the French navy instead of the French made Rafale that cost far more to acquire. Susy, I’m sure that many other people will adhere to your strong convictions on Boeing being the best choice; however when you replied to me “in this day and age where the muslim extremists have come close to taking over not only France but many Europeans, etc…” here you are completely wrong I’m sorry; you should spend a little bit of time in Europe. Here, People will laugh and consider this statement as purely “muslim phobia” prone by the far right to scare people or just ultra nationalist media’s brain washes articles. We have problems with immigrations like many other countries or riots in gettos etc but I can reassure you that they are not taking over yet…It is a bit like a European saying to you that America is going to be taking over by Mexican! just because you have millions of them in the Southern states or in Californa. There is a danger of terrorism anywhere nobody denies that but Europe is not Libanon! I just don’t get it when people create virtual “treath” just to convince people what to believe or what is best for them or their country. I have no problem people being patriotic and prefering their own country to other (here manufacturers, jobs, etc…) But creating fears that don’t even exist. America is one of the best allie to France, French navy pilots train in the US for many years at Pensacola and President Sarkozy has reinfforced his ties so there is no worries at that level. I do realise that I veered a bit from the main topic (tanker deal) but I found very difficult not to reply to nationalist “propaganda”. I had the impression to hear “narrow mind” medias blaming decisions, actions from another country just by looking at its own country point of view not by looking at the full picture (refer to US raid to Lybia or Iraq War veto). Anyway it is from the past and again I respect your opinion. I hope you don’t feel “personnaly attack” as it is not the aim of this forum I think. Freedoom of speech is great especially as we can all learn something from others
	DaveGood June 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am SuzyQ.… You want a Boeing “Solution”… at any price and at any cost. You’ve failed to explain why but the rest of us have worked that out. DaveGood
	DaveGood June 29th, 2008 at 11:39 am I’m sorry but most of this “discussion” is pointless. America needs that tanker but it will not get built because America can’t\won’t pay for it. Just so you guys know.…the bulk of America’s military expenditure in the last few years ( Signed off by republicans) has been funded by loans from The Chinese and middle east Governments.….. don’t count on that continueing.… and start hoarding every penny you’ve got to repay the loans. DaveGood
	SuzyQ June 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm Frank, I created no “muslim phobia”. There is, here we go again, an active Jihad against the US/UK/ISRAEL and any allies thereof (remember how quickly Spain backed out of Iraq after they were attacked?). Oh, and about the personal attacks against me? They are well noted and swayed this “discussion” far from the main point of the Tanker Deal — I’m not upset about them — if people want to call names instead of discussing the facts I actually find it juvenile and somewhat humorous, although I must say that it is unneccessary and makes the person saying such things look pretty immature. And the US supports so many other countries via our IMPORTS and loans/etc. that if we did not exist and do so, half the countries in the world would not exist (just an estimate). Comparing the size of France and other European countries, had the 911 bombing occured there, it would wipe out entire cities and who would come to their aid? THE USA. So yes, I am a bit disturbed at the general attitude of other countries regarding the US. So back to the Tanker, yes, it is a Boeing win or a huge loss if the bid goes to NG/EADS/AIRBUS. Study the facts again.
	SuzyQ June 30th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Dave — I agree this discussion has become pointless. Frank’s commentary that “freedom of speech” is great, but some here in the US no longer have that “right” or as I should state “luxury” due to the left PC and secular progressive movements… Too bad. I’ve only answered with my knowledge of the Tanker program from other’s comments and been blasted for it. Trust me, Dave and Frank, I am highly involved in politics here and unfortunately study every aspect every day and will fight not to become a “SOCIALIST” nation whom always FAIL and end up counting on other countries! Part of that is keeping some of our products and PRIDE here in the US — especially within our own Military. That is why this Tanker is so important to us.
	Michael July 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm And the Tanker is important to the USAF, trust me i know. The Airforce chose what it says is right for it now, like i said before, if Boeing is worried about losing ground in the Tanker world, for the next round they should come out with the KC-777, until then time to move on and accept the fact right now the KC-45 is the best product for the USAF, not because i say so, but thats what the Airforce said so.
	MESS July 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm Interesting #‘s Federal Instances Misconduct Contract of $‘s $s Misconduct Since 1995 BoeingCompany $19718.2m 24 $ 863.1m NorthropGrumman $15111.3m 23 $ 450.0m http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm
	MESS July 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm One of the items in the GAO report stated that the estimated overun cost the airforce used to estimate Boeings side of the contract was too high. In GAO recent reports however it looks like Boeings cost overuns are very high. Looks like the GAO’s left hand doesn’t know what the GAO’s right hand is doing… GAO says Boeing overruns totaled billions By JOELLE TESSLER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Three multiyear military contracts with The Boeing Co. cost the government at least $3 billion more than projected, a federal watchdog agency said Friday. In one instance, the Air Force paid $16.6 billion — $2.3 billion more than originally estimated — for 80 of Boeing’s C-17A Globemaster aircraft. Another Boeing contract, to deliver 232 Apache helicopters to the Army, cost $2.1 billion, exceeding the original projection of $1.6 billion. And the Navy paid Boeing $9.2 billion, or $381 million more than the original estimate, for 210 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet attack aircraft. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350687_gaoboeing09.html
	Oldest391 July 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm Yes, SuzyQ is a Boeing employee. Of course she will take the Boeing standance. Her Job is at stake. SuzyQ, lets see if you can answer these few questions. 1. What was the last date that Boeing delivered a KC-135 tanker to the Air Force? A full production model off the assembly line. Do not count aircraft out of Depot Maintenance. 2. Why didn’t Boeing offer it 767–300 or –400 as their tanker? Why sell the Air Force the same plane, almost, that they sold the Japanese and Italians? 3. It it not true that Japan and Italy builds a lot of the Airframe for the B767? 4. Why is it all the other countries, Great Britain, Australia, UAE and others bought the Airbus Tanker? 5. Did Boeingu not get whipped by Lockheed when it came to the FX fighter? 6. Why is it that the Airbus tanker can carry more fuel and still take-off in less runway than the –300 and –400? 7. The B767 is considered a medium size aircraft. The A330 was built to complete with the 767 so that makes it a Medium size aircraft too. 8. Will Boeing and Dicks ever stop crying like babies. 9. Didn’t Boeing start whining when the SOD said the Tanker would be rebid? 10. Why doesn’t Boeing let the Air Force think for themselves when it comes to what the Air Force wants not what Boeing wants the Air Force to buy

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Top OSD Officials Think Tanker Deal Can Go Ahead

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments