Comments on: Tanker Decision Today

By: LC

LC — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:23:07 +0000

Care to explain what ITAR violation exists by going with the NG/EADS tanker, SUZYQ? You know, the tanker that will be built in Alabama…

While you’re at it, why not brief us on how your Boeing stock is doing.

By: Old391

Old391 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:40:49 +0000

Agree with BS Buster. If Gates goes to the Air Show he will see and touch a Tanker aircraft that is real and ready to fly NOW. What will Boeing bring to the Air Show as their Tanker, a Very BIG Picture of it because that is all they have of this Paper aircraft.

By: BS Buster

BS Buster — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:19:18 +0000

Chief Mac: You said “The Defence Dept., or who ever is in charge should Immediately put the cards on the table, have these contractors show us, the A.F.and the Sec. of Defense what they really have and what it can do„„Force a fly off like they have in the past”.

While this would ordinarily be a great idea,you must consider that we are talking about the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium here! It would be 2013, no 2014, no 2018 (darn schedule slips) before they could have the Frankentanker in the air. But then I’m sure the Sec Def and his staff will be at the 46th Farnborough International Airshow, July 14–20, 2008 in Farnborough, Hampshire, United Kingdom where they will be able to see the built, flown and certified KC-45, America’s New Tanker in person at the Northrop Grumman Pavilion!

Today’s Ethics Word: Boinginate

Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium

Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:58:30 +0000

The “acquisition process” is no more broken then it’s ever been. What’s broken is that Congress is now much more willing to grease a squeaky wheel, and that’s why we’re re-competing the tanker deal.

Although you have to hand it to Boeing. Their PR was immensely successful, to the point where people said that an aircraft assembled in Mobile with engines built by General Electric was “foreign”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:44:30 +0000

SuzyQ has no idea what she is talking about,

NG is only a conduit for EADS/FRANCE et. al. so once again. Yes, they are a US contractor, but will not be acting on behalf of the US but on behalf of the aforementioned entities

Please you obviously no nothing about the Northrop/EADS relationship, you are making a complete A-$-$ out of yourself. I know first hand how much Northrop is involved and how much EADS is involved, Northrop clearly is the big dog here. EADS is just providing the airframe, GE is providing the engines, Northrop will do all the assembly (not Frenchmen) including all the avionics and sensitive equipment. Nothing crucial to our national security is being “exported to france”. As a matter of fact EADS will be building their new cargo planes at the Alabama plant which will be assembled by AMERICAN workers (still with me?) So in actuality EADS will be outsourcing jobs to America (what a novel idea). Also you refer to EADS as EADS/France when in actuality it is a conglomorate of France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The fact is Northrop/EADS tanker has already been purchased by Australia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE for their next generation tanker while Boeing is struggling to get its tankers to Japan and Italy. Are you aware that Boeing ‘s tanker has parts being made in Japan and Italy, and Germany? Any time you start a program of this magnitude you will have parts of the craft made overseas, Anyone with any knowledge of the defense industry knows that. The fact is that Boeing got flat out beat, not by a huge margin, but they still got beat. And the international community is showing it by going with the Airbus tanker over Boeings. This isn’t about what tanker will help our elected officials get re-elected, it’s about what is best for our warfighter. And i’ve heard first hand from a few High ranking airforce officials that they honestly feel the Northrop tanker is the best option. I think they know whats best for our Airmen and Women then congress does. But lets face it Boeing has friends in high places so its no suprise they have gone this far. So Suzy Q you are clearly out of your league here.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:13:35 +0000

JP — I have “inside” information that the Italian Refuelers are LATE of course but now ON SCHEDULE for December/January deliveries so I don’t know where your info comes from.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:10:19 +0000

LOL! Talk about “get real” FISA is not intended to invade every single citizen’s right to privacy, so your comment, while laughable and not worth my time or effort to explain I was compelled for some reason to respond — (still laughing)

And NG is only a conduit for EADS/FRANCE et. al. so once again. Yes, they are a US contractor, but will not be acting on behalf of the US but on behalf of the aforementioned entities. Have any one of you been involved in any part of the Boeing Tanker program? Or studied the differences on what the USAF requested vs. what they ignorantly chose? And does it bother anyone that the top two officials of the USAF were FIRED by Def. Sec. Gates for good reason (including screwing up def contracts?). There is a reason that Sec Gates has NO CONFIDENCE in Young or Payton. Study up.

By: JP3586

JP3586 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:41:53 +0000

SuzyQ, you are talking about different aircraft.

The Japanese tanker is based on a 767–200 aircraft, not the Frankentanker! And it has not flown yet, because even the FAA said that they didn’t want to certify it. As for the Italian tanker (which competed with an A310, not an A330), it is THREE YEARS late! So yes, check the delivery schedules!

When it comes to the Air Force, we are talking about an aircraft that Boeing has NEVER built. NEVER … EVER !!!

What do you want? An aircraft the feeds the needs of some politicians, or an aircraft that feeds the needs of our warfighters?

By: Lbutler

Lbutler — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:06:32 +0000

“Once again, it’s not a matter of country vs. country so much as it is a matter of the US’ defense capabilities!”

– get real. Any logistics analyst would tell you our industrial base went south twenty years ago. Parts from China, anyone?

“Today was a great day — FISA was signed into law FINALLY”

– yes, it’s a truly great day when the US Congress and the President collaborate to gut the Constitution of it’s protection against warrantless searches and the right of the people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects. And don’t hand me that crap about electronic media being “different”. They didn’t have automobiles in 1791, either (in case you didn’t know when the Bill of Rights was ratified).

“why would we start all over with FRANCE?”

– hmmn, maybe because they actually built a tanker that will do the job? and last time I checked, NG was still a US defense contractor..

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:21:17 +0000

Check out the delivery schedule of the Italian AF refueling tanker. It’s on schedule and supposed to be pushed UP to December. Once again, it’s not a matter of country vs. country so much as it is a matter of the US’ defense capabilities! Today was a great day — FISA was signed into law FINALLY. And with Iran testing missles that will be able to reach Israel (who we will defend) why would we start all over with FRANCE? And I’m not ignorant of the fact that many parts come from many countries for the 767, please, give me some credit here.

By: JP3586

JP3586 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:41:41 +0000

Since when does the military know better what THEY need than our beloved politicians!

The 767 is a damn good airplane, the way we built them in the 1960s! See, some airlines still fly some. They haven’t bought any since 1998, but who cares!

And you should all be proud that Boeing has made every effort to build … well … on paper … the BEST possible aircraft! Fuselage from the 767–200, wings from the 767–300, and other parts from the 767–400!

If the Air Force buys it, they WILL build it, unlike these silly Europeans who already built two tankers and already tested them without even knowing if they’d get a contract! How stupid of them!

/end sarcasm …

By: Chief Mac

Chief Mac — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:35:26 +0000

What A Mess, I hear on the tv news from Mobile Ala that the Boeing 767 is not even ready to fly as a Tanker whereas they Airbus is ready, it has usable boom system, has transfered fuel, has taken on fuel it’s self and on and on„, true or false? any one know?.…Just who is this group Northrop, EAD and Airbus, who is the lead company, is Northrop just a figure head and Airbus is the controlling agency???? if so that should not be allowed, a foreign country controling a Military Defense contract«»…Whats The Ole Saying We Use To Hear On The Radio?, WAKE UP ARMERICA…The Defence Dept., or who ever is in charge should Immediately put the cards on the table, have these contractors show us, the A.F.and the Sec. of Defense what they really have and what it can do„„Force a fly off like they have in the past for a lot fighters heck this program has been kicking around a long time and this wouldn’t slow it down to much more and both companys should have descent product by now.And one more thing if the major components for the Northrop bird are going to be built in EUR the cost of shipping these wings, fuselage sections and flight controls to Ala will be outrageous and increase the cost of the airplane way out of the ball park. Think about It?????
Enough said from a retired ole SAC Maintenace CHIEF (26 1/2 in SAC, who worked for Rockwell B1B, Nortrop B2 and Boeing Renton QA’s and I hate to see a mess like this going on. Chief Mac

By: BS Buster

BS Buster — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:39:26 +0000

“a complete award to Boeing where it belongs!”, you must be kidding, SuzyQ. Why would we insist on giving our troops an inferior product assembled by a foreign company like the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium. Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t know the 767 was foreign and built by foreigners like the IAMAW, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. International, as in, having members in two or more nations.

Today’s Ethics Word: Boinginate

Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium

Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:52:44 +0000

Missed Sec of Def Gates but saw bits of the John Young news conference on C-Span. He is a smart guy and made the arguments you would expect against a split buy, such as training, parts, etc. He also addressed the tanker X, Y, Z issue saying that by doing it that way you could have more competition later to reduce price. He also mentioned there might be pencil-sharpening on this bid the second (or is it third) time around.

But we already have two types of tankers with the KC-10 and KC-135, and the former certainly needs to be replaced as well. It would still seem like awarding portions of the contract to both companies would increase competition the next time around because both manufacturers would have serious efforts on the ground to allow some reality-based bidding. Otherwise, with one winner this time, they would be in the cat-seat during the next round of bidding on tanker Y.

By: Sgt JFK

Sgt JFK — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:43:16 +0000

Sorry SuzyQ,
I hope everyone will get “on the horn” their congress Reps and express the need for competition in defense contracts to keep companies like Boeing in check. Enough with all the cost over runs and poor contract performance.! No company should have a monopoly on such an important system for our defence.
Only the best most capable system for our war fighters.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:37:48 +0000

A ray of hope for Boeing! I hope everyone will get “on the horn” to your state and local Congress representatives and push hard for a complete award to Boeing where it belongs! And with the recent threats from Iran that they will not back down from nuclear arms programs, can we afford to not only ignore ITAR regulations and set our defense systems back due to a “bad” decision by the USAF? Hate to bring up the “political” side of this but Obama all of the sudden flipped and called Iran (previously a tiny country that could be dealt with diplomatically) a threat to the US and Israel! EADS/Airbus/France cannot possibly nor would support the US in this time of crisis!

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:05:23 +0000

“The Solomonic decision would be to offer both companies half the production of the initial operational capability segment. Whether either company would accept that — and DoD lawyers would approve — is unclear but it was an option being discussed last week.”

Have no clue how this works or what it would cost, but considering the original plan for tankers X, Y, Z; why not skip one of those planned buys and split the purchase.

Or perhaps have both provide two bids: one price based on the full buy and one price based on 40% or 60% of the buy, so that a 60%/40% split cost could be evaluated against a 100% buy.

By: Sgt JFK

Sgt JFK — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:56:20 +0000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans an “expedited recompetition” for $35 billion worth of new aerial refueling tankers under the oversight of the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, according to congressional aides and a source briefed on the plan.

Defense Undersecretary John Young would become the new “source selection authority” for the program, instead of the Air Force, said the source, who asked not to be named.

The Air Force in February awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman Corp and EADS, but the Government Accountability Office, ruling on a protest filed by Boeing Co, last month found “significant errors” in the way the Air Force handled the competition, and urged a rerun.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)