No, some in Congress are (& it is unfortunate that they feel it needs to do so) “holding hostage” the SoAF until the DOD shows that it takes the GAO ruling seriously & will concuct the new solicitation consistent with the GAO decision. Congress has even included in the authorization bill language that funds for the KC-X will not be released unless the solicitation/selection is made in accordance with the GAO ruling.

Your ability to rewrite history is simply amazing.

Just TWO individuals went to jail, Darleen Druyun (USAF acquisition official) & Michael Sears (Boeing CFO) for illegally negotiating a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease. Also their respective bosses, Boeing CEO Phil Condit & Secretary of the USAF James Roche were forced to resign.

Druyun recused herself from further negotiations with Boeing & retired from the USAF (to take a job at Boeing) in Nov 2002. EVERYTHING that Druyun & Sears had done had been essentially undone/renegotiated prior to the cancellation of the deal in Oct 2004 [23 MONTHS AFTER DRUYUN HAD LEFT THE USAF].

The lease was cancelled for three reasons as spelled out in the IR report.

1) The report argued that the officials declined to order the analysis of alternatives to determine what other methods of obtaining tanking capability might exist. This was done, in part, because, at the time, Boeing was the sole company offering a boom-type aerial tanker aircraft, the type used by the Air Force.

2) The officials were also faulted for treating the aircraft as a commercial, off-the-shelf item, when in fact the KC-767 was so heavily modified from its civilian configuration that it should have been deemed a military product. As such, it should have been subjected to a raft of tests, evaluations, and oversight of its construction—procedures the officials hoped to skip because they were expensive, time consuming, and, they believed, unnecessary. The 767, they reasoned, was a proven design, and even the tanker version was being acquired by foreign countries.

2) Finally, the IG said, the Air Force had not identified any “urgent need” to acquire the tankers prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and thereafter actually found, in an initial evaluation of its KC-135s, that these aircraft could last for several decades longer, so long as they had assiduous care. USAF subsequently determined that corrosion was causing far more damage to the oldest KC-135E aircraft than had previously been judged and that they could not safely continue without a massive remanufacturing effort.

Note that several dozen KC-135Es have now been taken out of service due to age-related problems, including corrosion…yet we will not get any new tankers to replace them & the additional KC-135Es that will likely be taken out of service before we get any new tankers, until sometime around the middle of the next decade [even later than the pre-911 tanker recapitalization roadmap of 2012]. Not only that but under the lease agreement (assuming no major delays) after receiving the 4 SDD aircraft in 2006, we would have gotten 16 new KC-767 in 2007 [these 20 representing the 20 lease tanker under the 20/80 deal] and 20 more each year begining in 2008 [THAT’S THIS YEAR] yet under the KC-X program it is just 12–15 per year after the 4 SDD aircraft.

And of course very few have ever complained about what the DOD did to get MRAPs without all the ususal red tape that slows acquisitions down so…

Everyone is, “in the know” that the “initial acquisition process” resulted in an AF and two Boeing executives spending a well deserved paid vacation in prison courtesy of Uncle Sam for Bribery!

The reason OSD pulled the acquisition from AF is a no brainer, “Paid Political Consultants”, sounds familiar doesn’t it? Boeing got caught last time at the AF level, they must figure if they move higher up the protection will be better.

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

The initial acquisition process, IMHO… didn’t grant Boeing a fair shake and anyone in the know should acknowledge this as a fait accompli.

Some of us have hitched rides in KC-135’s and 767’s and could certainly give you a heads-up.…

In regards to the Airbus there’s no significant advantage that we can visualize over the Boeing version… the KC-45 is ready and rarin to go, tout suite… and we urgently require tankers now not years from now.…

OSD as a consequence has pulled final acquisition from AF so what signal is this sending us, guys and gals?

From the AF Times:
Schwartz was approved by a vote of 19–2 and McNabb was approved 19–1. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., voted against both nominees, and Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., voted against approval of Schwartz.