Comments on: Murtha Yields on Tanker Buy http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:36:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: AFnolehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-8140 AFnole Thu, 14 May 2009 01:46:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-8140 Boeing lost nothing in this because while the AF and DOD wait to submit another competitive acquisition Boeing is reaping the benefits of being the supplier of the KC-135.This decision was nothing more than politcal. There is a reason the AF acquisition team sat before a House subcommittee prior to Boeing requesting a debriefing. The main culprits were representatives from Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and Conneticut. The 4 states that would lose the most if Boeing did not protest the AF award to NG/EADS. Boeing lost nothing in this because while the AF and DOD wait to submit another competitive acquisition Boeing is reaping the benefits of being the supplier of the KC-135.

This decision was nothing more than politcal. There is a reason the AF acquisition team sat before a House subcommittee prior to Boeing requesting a debriefing. The main culprits were representatives from Washington, Kansas, Illinois, and Conneticut. The 4 states that would lose the most if Boeing did not protest the AF award to NG/EADS.

]]> By: max headroomhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-8017 max headroom Fri, 08 May 2009 22:22:58 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-8017 "lucrative earmarks". Murtha 0, Gates 0.what a joke. Fair is a joke. corruption feeding corruption and it's trying to put the fix in. Let's hope these buffoons make their move soon rather than playing political hockey with our sons and daughter's lives. “lucrative earmarks”. Murtha 0, Gates 0.

what a joke. Fair is a joke. corruption feeding corruption and it’s trying to put the fix in. Let’s hope these buffoons make their move soon rather than playing political hockey with our sons and daughter’s lives.

]]> By: prcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7990 prcem Thu, 07 May 2009 23:17:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7990 OBXRebel,First off all don't be fooled by it being called a NG plane. It isn't. It is designed & manufactured by Airbus/EADS in Europe. NG's workshare is 3 times more requirements than the KC-30 was found to be superior to the KC-767AT & the KC-767AT's superiority tended to be in the HIGHER priority requirements while the KC-30's superiority tended to be in the LOWER priority requirements.Sorry Boeing 'lost' because of the incompetence/unfairness of the KC-X Source Selection Team. Not only did the GAO sustain the protest it was THE strongest worded ruling most anyone can remember.***Jawaralal Bernstein,LOL OBXRebel,

First off all don’t be fooled by it being called a NG plane. It isn’t. It is designed & manufactured by Airbus/EADS in Europe. NG’s workshare is 3 times more requirements than the KC-30 was found to be superior to the KC-767AT & the KC-767AT’s superiority tended to be in the HIGHER priority requirements while the KC-30’s superiority tended to be in the LOWER priority requirements.

Sorry Boeing ‘lost’ because of the incompetence/unfairness of the KC-X Source Selection Team. Not only did the GAO sustain the protest it was THE strongest worded ruling most anyone can remember.

***

Jawaralal Bernstein,

LOL

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7984 TankerPuke Thu, 07 May 2009 21:40:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7984 Well, you can't say these comments aren't spirited! Here's some interesting questions to ask yourselves OBX/JB/DD: 1. If the "NG" tanker is more ready, then how come it has never transferred fuel with its boom on the Ausie KC-30? Only with the test boom on the A310 demonstrator. Why? you may ask...that's what the world wants to know. I'll bet it has a lot to do with their backhoe hydraulic drive design. You can't do dental surgery at the end of a backhoe. 2. If the "NG" tanker is truly American, then why is a fully designed and built Airbus KC-330 tanker in flight test with absolutely no input from NG? Are you drinking that French kool-aid? They will take the fully designed French tanker in kit form, float it to Alabama, and if the EVER build the plant, bolt it together like a tinker toy with American workers. Now you compare that to a full assembly line in Washington state and say they are the same?! The bottom line is that the Intellectual Property (those are the nice, high paying industrial base type jobs) has been developed in Europe and will stay there. The jobs we want to keep vital in the good old USA are not only assembly workers and engine makers, but Engineers and Scientists that invent this stuff. 3. If Boeing is the bigger "screw up" here, please explaing the A400M debacle to me. Airbus would like a solution too, so cc them. You could not name one large integrator/manufacturer that sells to the DoD that does not have current and past issues. You seem to want to harp on Boeing, so do some research. That C-17 Gates wants to kill started out so rough they were gonna canx it...but Boeing teamed with their customer and it has become the poster child for Aif Force programs...and by the way, Druyan drove that success story, ironically. You think NG is clean? Look at their ship building programs. 4. Finally, You demonize Boeing and call them corupt SOBs and idiots because they protested? For the record, that's the FIRST time they have (unlike every one of their competitors), and the GAO agreed with them on a record number of counts...not one little LCC issue, a full gambit of issues. In addition, they found NG/EADS "unawardable" on two counts because they refused to agree to helping the USAF stand up organic maintenance in two years and their A330 jet cannot go fast enough to fly tactical maneuvers per existing doctrine. So who saved the warfighter here? It wasn't NG/EADS and it wasn't the USAF themselves. And, as noted above, NG couldn't even get a "score" on the mission effectiveness "IFARA" factor 5 of the RFP until they whined and said they were gonna take their ball and go home unless the USAF changed the RFP. The USAF did and low and behold the larger tanker wins...even though it took double the bases, ramp space, and fuel to burn as the KC-135. As they say in computer modeling...garbage in, garbage out. Nuff said. Well, you can’t say these comments aren’t spirited! Here’s some interesting questions to ask yourselves OBX/JB/DD:
1. If the “NG” tanker is more ready, then how come it has never transferred fuel with its boom on the Ausie KC-30? Only with the test boom on the A310 demonstrator. Why? you may ask…that’s what the world wants to know. I’ll bet it has a lot to do with their backhoe hydraulic drive design. You can’t do dental surgery at the end of a backhoe.
2. If the “NG” tanker is truly American, then why is a fully designed and built Airbus KC-330 tanker in flight test with absolutely no input from NG? Are you drinking that French kool-aid? They will take the fully designed French tanker in kit form, float it to Alabama, and if the EVER build the plant, bolt it together like a tinker toy with American workers. Now you compare that to a full assembly line in Washington state and say they are the same?! The bottom line is that the Intellectual Property (those are the nice, high paying industrial base type jobs) has been developed in Europe and will stay there. The jobs we want to keep vital in the good old USA are not only assembly workers and engine makers, but Engineers and Scientists that invent this stuff.
3. If Boeing is the bigger “screw up” here, please explaing the A400M debacle to me. Airbus would like a solution too, so cc them. You could not name one large integrator/manufacturer that sells to the DoD that does not have current and past issues. You seem to want to harp on Boeing, so do some research. That C-17 Gates wants to kill started out so rough they were gonna canx it…but Boeing teamed with their customer and it has become the poster child for Aif Force programs…and by the way, Druyan drove that success story, ironically. You think NG is clean? Look at their ship building programs.
4. Finally, You demonize Boeing and call them corupt SOBs and idiots because they protested? For the record, that’s the FIRST time they have (unlike every one of their competitors), and the GAO agreed with them on a record number of counts…not one little LCC issue, a full gambit of issues. In addition, they found NG/EADS “unawardable” on two counts because they refused to agree to helping the USAF stand up organic maintenance in two years and their A330 jet cannot go fast enough to fly tactical maneuvers per existing doctrine. So who saved the warfighter here? It wasn’t NG/EADS and it wasn’t the USAF themselves. And, as noted above, NG couldn’t even get a “score” on the mission effectiveness “IFARA” factor 5 of the RFP until they whined and said they were gonna take their ball and go home unless the USAF changed the RFP. The USAF did and low and behold the larger tanker wins…even though it took double the bases, ramp space, and fuel to burn as the KC-135. As they say in computer modeling…garbage in, garbage out.
Nuff said.

]]> By: BS_Busterhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7977 BS_Buster Thu, 07 May 2009 18:48:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7977 KIS, Smurffa lining his pockets with special interest money? No, can't be."The newly renamed John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha's ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway. " KIS, Smurffa lining his pockets with special interest money? No, can’t be.

“The newly renamed John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha’s ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year’s stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway. ”

]]> By: Jawaralal Bernsteinhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7945 Jawaralal Bernstein Thu, 07 May 2009 12:16:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7945 The single biggest reason to be wary of Boeing is that it has badly screwed up almost all sizable programs it has taken on for the government (and some commerrcial ones in the last five years. Cost over-runs, delays, shortfalls in delivered functionality vs. the spec. We may trust their commercial airplanes, but not their border fences, satellites, Army ground vehicle programs, etc. They have lost the knacks of integration, managing subs, and being straight with the customer. No one wants to see Americans lose jobs, and the good news is NG/EADS will have about the same number of jobs in America as Boeing would on this program. We need a competition, badly, but the smart money is not on Boeing. Its economics and its shareholders won't let Boeing give the planes away. They certainly can't win on quality. The single biggest reason to be wary of Boeing is that it has badly screwed up almost all sizable programs it has taken on for the government (and some commerrcial ones in the last five years. Cost over-runs, delays, shortfalls in delivered functionality vs. the spec. We may trust their commercial airplanes, but not their border fences, satellites, Army ground vehicle programs, etc. They have lost the knacks of integration, managing subs, and being straight with the customer. No one wants to see Americans lose jobs, and the good news is NG/EADS will have about the same number of jobs in America as Boeing would on this program. We need a competition, badly, but the smart money is not on Boeing. Its economics and its shareholders won’t let Boeing give the planes away. They certainly can’t win on quality.

]]> By: OBXRebelhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7934 OBXRebel Thu, 07 May 2009 05:51:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7934 The fact of the matter is that NG has the better plane at the better price. They have two planes built and the boom has been tested over 250 times without failure. The corrupt SOB's at Boeing need to stop acting like little girls and put on their big boy pants. They lost and then proceeded to cost the US taxpayers millions of dollars with their bogus misuse of the appeals process. This will actually benefit US companies by opening up European markets. They have always looked on the US as protectionists and short sited. The fact of the matter is that NG has the better plane at the better price. They have two planes built and the boom has been tested over 250 times without failure. The corrupt SOB’s at Boeing need to stop acting like little girls and put on their big boy pants. They lost and then proceeded to cost the US taxpayers millions of dollars with their bogus misuse of the appeals process. This will actually benefit US companies by opening up European markets. They have always looked on the US as protectionists and short sited.

]]> By: Schlappyhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7932 Schlappy Thu, 07 May 2009 05:09:57 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7932 Agree with everything you just posted K.I.S. Agree with everything you just posted K.I.S.

]]> By: Keep It Simplehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7922 Keep It Simple Thu, 07 May 2009 03:52:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7922 Rep. Jack Murtha is a classic example of why term limits are desperately needed. Someday history will show he has his pockets lined by special interest groups and is in no way thinking what is best for the USAF customer. He is interested in ONLY his interests and nothing more. He should not be allowed to voice any opinion on this valuable program of which he knows little to nothing. With Mr. Gates as Sec of Def, the USAF will be lucky to get a 50’ hose and a 55 gal drum to call a tanker. Murtha has nothing to worry about, the deck is stacked already and Gates has put the fear of being fired into anyone who knows anything and could speak accordingly. Rep. Jack Murtha is a classic example of why term limits are desperately needed. Someday history will show he has his pockets lined by special interest groups and is in no way thinking what is best for the USAF customer. He is interested in ONLY his interests and nothing more. He should not be allowed to voice any opinion on this valuable program of which he knows little to nothing. With Mr. Gates as Sec of Def, the USAF will be lucky to get a 50’ hose and a 55 gal drum to call a tanker. Murtha has nothing to worry about, the deck is stacked already and Gates has put the fear of being fired into anyone who knows anything and could speak accordingly.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7913 pfcem Wed, 06 May 2009 21:53:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7913 DensityDuck,What Senators accused major defense contractors of being “anti-American”?The GAO confirmed that KC-X Source Selection Team was staffed by incompetents.The KC-30 IS “foreign”. It is designed & manufactured in Europe. Yes the engines are American. Does that make any aircraft with American engines an American aircraft?The KC-30 ISN'T more-desirable OR more-capable. The USAF/DOD rejected it, then Congress in its infinate wisdom forced the USAF/DOD to conduct another competition when it was discovered that in the USAF/DOD's haste to get the tanker it wanted (the KC-767) that it skipped required steps in the acquisition process & EADS used the fact that there HAD to be another competition to force the USAF/DOD to alter its criteria. Then even with the altered criteria the KC-X Source Selection Team failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation...Reality HAD to be altered in the CMARPS model just so that the KC-30 COULD complete some scenarios in order for it to even achieve a score.***Boeing offered more than they asked for (meet or exceeded ALL key requirements - the KC-X Sources Selection Team failed to justify how it concluded that the KC-30 did) & even the KC-X Sources Selection Team (using its flawed cost evaluation) admitted (coincidentally just days befre the GAO ruling) that the Boeing off was in fact the less expensive.The GAO didn't decide that it knew more about aerial refueling operations than the USAF. It did its job & found that the KC-X Sources Selection Team (not the USAF) was incompotent & unfair in its selection. A lot of people who DON'T know jack about aerial refueling operations than the USAF pressured the USAF/DOD to 'accept' a platform which it had already rejected for not meeting its requirements.The only "trouble" Boeing had with the proposal was with the incompetence & unfairness of the KC-X Sources Selection Team. If not for that Boeing wouldn't have lost it. DensityDuck,

What Senators accused major defense contractors of being “anti-American”?

The GAO confirmed that KC-X Source Selection Team was staffed by incompetents.

The KC-30 IS “foreign”. It is designed & manufactured in Europe. Yes the engines are American. Does that make any aircraft with American engines an American aircraft?

The KC-30 ISN’T more-desirable OR more-capable. The USAF/DOD rejected it, then Congress in its infinate wisdom forced the USAF/DOD to conduct another competition when it was discovered that in the USAF/DOD’s haste to get the tanker it wanted (the KC-767) that it skipped required steps in the acquisition process & EADS used the fact that there HAD to be another competition to force the USAF/DOD to alter its criteria. Then even with the altered criteria the KC-X Source Selection Team failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation…

Reality HAD to be altered in the CMARPS model just so that the KC-30 COULD complete some scenarios in order for it to even achieve a score.

***

Boeing offered more than they asked for (meet or exceeded ALL key requirements — the KC-X Sources Selection Team failed to justify how it concluded that the KC-30 did) & even the KC-X Sources Selection Team (using its flawed cost evaluation) admitted (coincidentally just days befre the GAO ruling) that the Boeing off was in fact the less expensive.

The GAO didn’t decide that it knew more about aerial refueling operations than the USAF. It did its job & found that the KC-X Sources Selection Team (not the USAF) was incompotent & unfair in its selection. A lot of people who DON’T know jack about aerial refueling operations than the USAF pressured the USAF/DOD to ‘accept’ a platform which it had already rejected for not meeting its requirements.

The only “trouble” Boeing had with the proposal was with the incompetence & unfairness of the KC-X Sources Selection Team. If not for that Boeing wouldn’t have lost it.

]]> By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7910 DensityDuck Wed, 06 May 2009 20:46:43 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7910 Howard: "Final Assembly" is a "pretty small part" of the process? Tell that to Boeing, who have pared their operations back to exactly that "pretty small part"."The bottom line is that if the AF wants a KC-135 replacement, they should say so."Oddly enough, that's what they DID say. NG offered more than they asked for, and for a price that was acceptable. Unfortunately, the GAO decided that it knew more about aerial refueling operations than the United States Air Force.If KC-767 were an undebateably superior aircraft, then Boeing shouldn't have had any trouble with the proposal. Hell, they should've had actual flying units ready to demo to the customer! This should have been the very definition of "turnkey procurement". This was Boeing's proposal to lose, and they lost it. Howard: “Final Assembly” is a “pretty small part” of the process? Tell that to Boeing, who have pared their operations back to exactly that “pretty small part”.

“The bottom line is that if the AF wants a KC-135 replacement, they should say so.”

Oddly enough, that’s what they DID say. NG offered more than they asked for, and for a price that was acceptable. Unfortunately, the GAO decided that it knew more about aerial refueling operations than the United States Air Force.

If KC-767 were an undebateably superior aircraft, then Boeing shouldn’t have had any trouble with the proposal. Hell, they should’ve had actual flying units ready to demo to the customer! This should have been the very definition of “turnkey procurement”. This was Boeing’s proposal to lose, and they lost it.

]]> By: Howardhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7909 Howard Wed, 06 May 2009 20:09:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7909 DensityDuck, You seem to have a few things misunderstood there. The A330 for the tanker will be built in the same factories in Europe that build the current commercial A330s. The final assembly, which is a pretty small part of the whole process, has been proposed for MOBILE, AL (not Atlanta, GA). The vast majority of the work on the A330 will still be done in the EU, but the same French, Germans, Brits, and Spaniards that build the A330s today. So, yes, it IS a "foreign" airplane.You also seem to equate pure size to "more capable". The problem is the RFP did NOT make that equivalency. In fact, it specifically disconnected the two. That was one of the successful protest points.The bottom line is that if the AF wants a KC-135 replacement, they should say so. IF they really want a KC-10 replacement they should say so. The last go around was fatally flawed, as the GAO found. DensityDuck,
You seem to have a few things misunderstood there. The A330 for the tanker will be built in the same factories in Europe that build the current commercial A330s. The final assembly, which is a pretty small part of the whole process, has been proposed for MOBILE, AL (not Atlanta, GA). The vast majority of the work on the A330 will still be done in the EU, but the same French, Germans, Brits, and Spaniards that build the A330s today. So, yes, it IS a “foreign” airplane.

You also seem to equate pure size to “more capable”. The problem is the RFP did NOT make that equivalency. In fact, it specifically disconnected the two. That was one of the successful protest points.

The bottom line is that if the AF wants a KC-135 replacement, they should say so. IF they really want a KC-10 replacement they should say so. The last go around was fatally flawed, as the GAO found.

]]> By: Aurorahttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7906 Aurora Wed, 06 May 2009 18:17:35 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7906 Reuters has an article out today in which "the U.S. Air Force is exploring ways to shore up a declining U.S. space industrial base". http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0619577420090506?rpc=44 Is this going to extend to the entire (U.S.) AERO-space industrial base? In other words, will the concern extend to tankers as well as satellites? Reuters has an article out today in which “the U.S. Air Force is exploring ways to shore up a declining U.S. space industrial base”.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0619577420090506?rpc=44
Is this going to extend to the entire (U.S.) AERO-space industrial base? In other words, will the concern extend to tankers as well as satellites?

]]> By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7904 DensityDuck Wed, 06 May 2009 17:41:45 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7904 pfcem: Actually, I'm talking about Senators accusing major defense contractors of being "anti-American". I'm talking about Boeing taking out full-page ads in major newspapers claiming that the USAF and DoD were staffed by incompetents. I'm talking about the claim that an airplane assembled in Atlanta, using American engines and avionics, is "foreign". I'm talking about the bitter irony that a more-desirable, more-capable entrant was successfully protested because its superior performance wasn't a requirement! pfcem: Actually, I’m talking about Senators accusing major defense contractors of being “anti-American”. I’m talking about Boeing taking out full-page ads in major newspapers claiming that the USAF and DoD were staffed by incompetents. I’m talking about the claim that an airplane assembled in Atlanta, using American engines and avionics, is “foreign”. I’m talking about the bitter irony that a more-desirable, more-capable entrant was successfully protested because its superior performance wasn’t a requirement!

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7902 TankerPuke Wed, 06 May 2009 17:21:57 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7902 john, I followed that pretty closely and walked away thinking that absolutely NOTHING I read in the media is accurate in any way. For example, the lease deal evolved into a lease/buy long after Druyan left her ACQ office...yet Dudley McCain had everyone believe there was a seedy and unethical connection between her and the tanker lease contract. Druyan's dust had long settled before the lease deal was inked and approved...but Dudley and the media would have you believe it was all a vast conspiracy. Those two Boeing executives, Sears & Druyan, were simply idiots, trying to cover up hiring her 2 weeks before she recused herself. Good on Boeing for canning them, but no connection to the lease deal. During lease days, USAF talked freely with BA & EADS to understand technology readiness and capability maturity versus their requirements. Now in KC-X days, not a peep. Which would YOU say is more open and transparent?? john, I followed that pretty closely and walked away thinking that absolutely NOTHING I read in the media is accurate in any way. For example, the lease deal evolved into a lease/buy long after Druyan left her ACQ office…yet Dudley McCain had everyone believe there was a seedy and unethical connection between her and the tanker lease contract. Druyan’s dust had long settled before the lease deal was inked and approved…but Dudley and the media would have you believe it was all a vast conspiracy. Those two Boeing executives, Sears & Druyan, were simply idiots, trying to cover up hiring her 2 weeks before she recused herself. Good on Boeing for canning them, but no connection to the lease deal. During lease days, USAF talked freely with BA & EADS to understand technology readiness and capability maturity versus their requirements. Now in KC-X days, not a peep. Which would YOU say is more open and transparent??

]]> By: johnhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7893 john Wed, 06 May 2009 11:56:42 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7893 ya im sure that tanker lease program boeing had was pretty fair and transparent......? ya im sure that tanker lease program boeing had was pretty fair and transparent.…..?

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7891 pfcem Wed, 06 May 2009 05:11:25 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7891 DensityDuck,What happened *after* that selection?Perhaps you are referring to the non-political GOA ruling exposing the selection for being anything but fair &/or transparent... DensityDuck,

What happened *after* that selection?

Perhaps you are referring to the non-political GOA ruling exposing the selection for being anything but fair &/or transparent…

]]> By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7881 DensityDuck Tue, 05 May 2009 21:14:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7881 pfcem: It's extremely amusing that you claim that NG's selection was the result of "pandering to political pressure", given what happened *after* that selection. pfcem: It’s extremely amusing that you claim that NG’s selection was the result of “pandering to political pressure”, given what happened *after* that selection.

]]> By: Aurorahttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7880 Aurora Tue, 05 May 2009 20:32:55 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7880 I remain convinced that the White House will have the final say on who builds this tanker, not Gates. As I stated above, I simply can't see the Obamaites opting to lay off workers in Everett to grown jobs in (red state) Alabama and Toulouse. That would be indefensible to the unions who supported Obama all the way. At the end of the day it will come down to this and not pallets, litters, pumping rates, or even cost. Where will the maximum political benefit be derived--Airbus or Boeing?They could throw some work Alabama's way, but I seriously doubt they will give them the whole program, regardless of how many retired Air Force generals get appointed to the board of EADS North America. I remain convinced that the White House will have the final say on who builds this tanker, not Gates. As I stated above, I simply can’t see the Obamaites opting to lay off workers in Everett to grown jobs in (red state) Alabama and Toulouse. That would be indefensible to the unions who supported Obama all the way. At the end of the day it will come down to this and not pallets, litters, pumping rates, or even cost. Where will the maximum political benefit be derived–Airbus or Boeing?

They could throw some work Alabama’s way, but I seriously doubt they will give them the whole program, regardless of how many retired Air Force generals get appointed to the board of EADS North America.

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/comment-page-1/#comment-7879 TankerPuke Tue, 05 May 2009 19:41:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6109#comment-7879 pfcem, you hit the nail on the head. And who is the one guy that stands on a soap box and proudly brags about halting the "evil" lease program? That's right...McCain. A Dudley DoRight wannabe. So few people know that his campaign staff was riddled with EADS lobbyists. He claims the moral high ground and talks about killing this "corupt" deal while hiding his French loving staff. What a sham. He did everything he could to pander to EADS and their American frontman NG. If the USAF had simply executed the lease/buy deal and embarked on a rational spiral technology upgrade process they would be flying their new tankers today and growing their capability as technology and affordability allow. Win-win. But no, not to be. Instead we're treated to this nightmarish tennis match between the only two aerospace giants, and a slanted referee that ignores fouls...until a protest. NG continues to use "KC-45" although that was canceled a year ago. Their jet is larger than a KC-10 by a longshot, but carries over 100,000 pounds less gas. You have to park them with C-5s and we're gonna replace a KC-135 with that behemoth?! Are you kidding me? They don't fit in the garage, and as the Air Force themselves said back in the lease days before Dudley killed it...the Airbus tanker does not bring commensurate value to the mission to go along with it's (much) larger size. And as to it being an American tanker because NG puts their sticker on it...how is that so when it's basically an Australian tanker, which NG had nothing to do with? 'nuff said. pfcem, you hit the nail on the head. And who is the one guy that stands on a soap box and proudly brags about halting the “evil” lease program? That’s right…McCain. A Dudley DoRight wannabe. So few people know that his campaign staff was riddled with EADS lobbyists. He claims the moral high ground and talks about killing this “corupt” deal while hiding his French loving staff. What a sham. He did everything he could to pander to EADS and their American frontman NG. If the USAF had simply executed the lease/buy deal and embarked on a rational spiral technology upgrade process they would be flying their new tankers today and growing their capability as technology and affordability allow. Win-win. But no, not to be. Instead we’re treated to this nightmarish tennis match between the only two aerospace giants, and a slanted referee that ignores fouls…until a protest. NG continues to use “KC-45″ although that was canceled a year ago. Their jet is larger than a KC-10 by a longshot, but carries over 100,000 pounds less gas. You have to park them with C-5s and we’re gonna replace a KC-135 with that behemoth?! Are you kidding me? They don’t fit in the garage, and as the Air Force themselves said back in the lease days before Dudley killed it…the Airbus tanker does not bring commensurate value to the mission to go along with it’s (much) larger size. And as to it being an American tanker because NG puts their sticker on it…how is that so when it’s basically an Australian tanker, which NG had nothing to do with? ’nuff said.

]]>