Gates Warns, Lets AF Pick Tanker

Gates Warns, Lets AF Pick Tanker

UPDATED: CSAF Says Competition Must Be “Pristine as Possible;” Punchy Northrop Grumman Comment

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will allow the Air Force to select the winner of the KC-X tanker competition, although he said “my office will continue to have a robust oversight role.”

Gates made the announcement in a Wednesday morning speech at the Air Force Association’s annual conference, eliciting applause from many of the more than 500 people listening to him.


However, on top of his pointed note that his office will oversee the process, Gates also said, “I don’t need to belabor the importance of getting this done soon and done right… We are committed to the integrity of the selection process, and cannot afford the kind of letdowns, parochial squabbles, and corporate food fights that have bedeviled this effort in the past.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters later that the service must “make every aspect of the competition as pristine as possible to prevent even the temptation of a protest.” Schwartz also said that the SecDef “is confident we have a team that can push this across the goal line.”

The chairman of the Air Force Association’s board, Joe Sutter, told DoD Buzz that Gates’ decision was an important “mark of confidence” in the service. Sutter also said he heard someone ask Gates after the speech if it was a close call. “Not really,” the secretary replied — according to Sutter. That would indicate that Gates’ confidence in the technical abilities of Air Force acquisition experts and of the service’s leadership has been restored after the battering it took when Boeing won its protest over the initial contract award.

Air Force Secretary Mike Donley said the service was “pleased” with Gates’ announcement, noting that the tanker is the service’s “number one priority.”

Boeing, one of the two competitors, put out a statement after the secretary’s speech. “Boeing is ready for the release of the Draft Request for Proposal, and will be looking for clarity in how the service’s requirements will be defined and prioritized,” said spokesman William Barksdale in an email statement.

Northrop Grumman came out swinging: “Northrop Grumman is pleased that a decision has been made and we are looking forward to competing and winning the tanker contract again,” said spokesman Randy Belote in an email.

Join the Conversation

No matter how fool proof the new RFP will be Boeing will gripe about it

Yea agreed. Boeing is going to piss and moan the second it looks like they won’t get it…and then go on to say how un-American it is to buy Airbus. They should try to salvage their commercial side rather than continue to loose face over this.

The RFP will be protested by at least one, maybe both likely bidders.

The award will be protested by the loser.

Airbus doesn’t have the votes in Congress to get this thing funded.

If the USAF wants a tanker sometime this century, the only way forward is to sole source to Boeing.

Besides, if the USAF truly wants “more” & “bigger”, there is the KC-777. True it hasn’t passed an ounce of fuel via an air refueling boom. Then again, neither has the A330.…

I’m also curious as to whether Gen Lichte’s retirement will have an impact on the source selection? He certainly seemed enamored by the airbus the last go-around.

Old391 & LockMartSkunk,

Pull your heads out of your behinds. Boeing’s ‘gripes’ about the last solicitation proved to be valid.

***

It is VERY good new that Gates has seen fit to “allow” the USAF to select its own tanker being is how the USAF was all but out of the loop during the last one.

THE question now is if the USAF team will bow to political pressure & continue with the charade of accomodating the now twice found to be noncompetative KC-30 or if they will put for a RFP based on what it has though DECADES of experience identified as what its requirements/criteria are.

A 2nd question is will the USAF will decide to drop the KC-X & go directly to the KC-Y (KC-10 replacement) 1st and hedge its bets on replacing its KC-135s with ‘just’ the later KC-Z…

The consensus is this contract will be awarded to Boeing once and for all!

Boo hoo, Wah, Wah!!! Oh sorry the Draft RFP isn’t out yet, just a premature Boeing crying session. Practice is always good I guess, even for a crying expert like Boeing!

By the way, did you know that, “In cooperation with Chinese airlines, CAAC and industry, Boeing has provided enhanced professional training to more than 37,000 Chinese aviation professionals since 1993, … at no charge to China.” Source: Boeing website

All part of their “Buy American (Not) Campaign” I suppose.

pfcem, if anyone head is up someones tush it is yours. Boeing was griping about the new RFP before the Air Force even started to write it. Boeing can not make up it mind on a 767 or 777. Hey pfcem we also remember that you were complaining about the bigger A330, now Boeing is going to offer the 777 which is bigger. Double standard there.

Old391,
No double standard. Actually, by offering either the 767 or the 777 Boeing can best meet the requirement of the customer. Kind of like the same reason there is a 737, 747, 767, and 777 in the first place. They settled on the 767 the first time because it best fit what the USAF had asked for (unlike NG/Airbus who had to have the initial RFP changed to have any chance of winning becasue its plane was too big and who only has the 330). As the GAO pointed out in upholding Boeings protest (amongst numerous problems), the USAF selected the 330 based tanker on grounds that did not match the RFP criteria (you should actually read the GAO report, it is pretty interesting reading, even if you are a dedicated Boeing hater and would not want to be confused with the facts). It will be interesting to see what the RFP says. Will they want something like the KC-X (KC-135 size) or the KC-Y (KC-10 size)?

It was better when Gen. Lemay would just say “I likr it, build me 700″

@pcfem and the rest of the Boeing fan club — Our team has developed hardware to be mounted in both the Boeing and NG airframes and your guys over at Boeing still have yet to provide us with anything to mount or toys on. NG already gave us the frame to work with and we are good to go with them. Basically our guys are sick of waiting for Boeing to come up with ANYTHING other than a computer simulation for this tanker. If Boeing wins, it is ONLY from political string pulling . . and as for our tanker fleet, it will be at best as on time as the 787.

It sure doesn’t take long for the issue to take back seat to the hating in these postings. Come on fellas, pull that diploma out and put your big-boy pants on and focus on the issues, not the emotions and stay professional.
That said, the true problem with KC-X remains…how to write an RFP that does not favor either of the two primary, yet very dissimilar aircraft. The Air Force confused industry last go-around with a vague presentation of what they wanted and how they would value different capabilites. Further, the RFP and evaluation process completely left the operator (The Warfighter!) out of the process. CONOPS descriptions were very brief and unprioritized and decades of historic tanker use (KC-135 & KC-10) was absent from the process. So, on one hand you have an international collaboration saying “here’s our solution, now what’s your problem” and the home team saying “we’ve been doing this for 70 years…why do you need more when you don’t use all of the capability you have now?”. It’s an impasse leading to certain protests and further delays that only hurt our young warfighters out there doing the job today…and more importantly, 20 years from now when that old iron will still be flying. While it may seem more economical to sole source this to one team or the other, the only expeditious path seems to be Dual Source the thing and get ‘er done! If present value of money is considered, the years of further wasted time and money on proposals and protests…as well as more rapid replacement of KC-135 fleet…would overwhelm the inefficiencies Gates is fixated on. Add to that the elimination of single-point failure that a sole source represents if that fleet were grounded for any reason in the future, and that happens. Each time brings different values and capabilities to the party, let’s put them both on contract and get moving. Our military deserves much better from their leaders and industry than we have seen to date.

Throw out the RFP and have an old fashion Fly Off like they did for the JSF. Set up some rules and selection criteria to include flying capabilites, take-off, fuel delivery and cargo hauling and of course cost.

pfcem,Old391 & LockMartSkunk.Somebody can explain to me in a dumb way,not to technical or complicated what is the issue or problems with both aircraft.

@elga…all I know is that the boys over at Boeing don’t even have an actual tanker built. They have a bunch of computer sims. The boys over at NG have an actual plane that is flying around in the air that we can test our hardware on. At LMT we don’t believe Boeing will have anything ready any time soon (look at their timeline on the 787 program for past performance) so our guys with the toys for their tanker are sitting around twiddling their thumbs while our guys working with NG say their product is essentially ready to go. So from a third party working with both teams it really seems like a no-brainer to go with NG if what they want is a tanker now.

As far as the political nonsense, I don’t have a clue. It seems like pcfem knows more about that blame game than I do.

Prediction — Boeing wins and 1/2 of the new tanker is manufactured in China (check out what Boeing does on their other plane programs as a gauge. You heard it here first, folks.….

Yep… Boeing’s out, Northrop Grumman’s in again. Boeing will flex again, and lose

LockMartSkunk, you speak so authoritatively yet are so short on facts. You quote your NG buddies as having a crate for you to bolt your toys on, yet Boeing is flying paper airplanes. Please, let’s quote facts that can be Googled by anyone. First, NG has never designed, built, tested or made operational a tanker aircraft. They are leaning on Airbus’ Australian tanker status as their own. That KC-330 tanker is still in flight test and has never passed gas with it’s boom. The limited fuel that has been passed through an Airbus boom is via their A310 demonstrator, and those wet contacts are scant. Still big issues there, it appears. So for NG to tell you they have a platform ready for you is stretching reality pretty far. Next, the Boeing reality…Boeing has delivered 3 KC-767 boom-equipped tankers to the Japanese. They have been built, tested, certified, delivered and the Japanese customer has delared IOC. That means those KC-767s are operational with a real customer, not paper, not in test…operational. In addition, KC-767s for Italy, which have both Boom and Drogue capability are nearing completion of flight test…not paper design, “flight test”, and are nearing delivery of 2 Italy tankers. Those tankers also recently demonstrated operational capability to the US Air Force at Nellis. Neither Airbus/NG or Boeing know yet what the next RFP asks for, and undoubtedly both will have to modify their current tankers for USAF requirements. They are both in the same boat, with Boeing in the lead on fielding new tanker technology. Please don’t speak so authoritatively when you don’t have the facts. People on these blogs will believe you and spread your disinformation. Undoubtedly, whomever wins USAF KC-X will be delighted to talk to LM about your nifty toys and how they can be plugged into our country’s next tanker.

it seems sec.gates has a problem,they picked the real “winner”,but like now with our missle program,he is changing his mind.…where are the people that have courage and conviction in this govt.…

Funny how TankerPuke, uses two different measures when comparing the aircraft? For NGC he talks about the AIrbus 310 and 330, but for Boeing he only mentions the 767s, as though the 767–100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 ad nauseum are the same aircraft! If we are to state facts then get it straight, the Boeing FrankenTanker, 767–100&200&300&400&862 is a paper airplane, never been built, flown nor tested for 787 type pre-flight cracks.

BS_Buster and LockMartSkunk You have lost credibility with me. You may thank President Nixon for Boeing being exported to China.

TankerPuke. True they have some aircraft flying for Japan or Italy, but remember parts of the tanker airframes are manufactured in these two countries, but it is not the same aircraft they are offering to the Air Force for the KC-X. So you can not use those aircraft to bases an accurate opinion on how long before the Boeing Frankentanker will be off the drawing board and simulator program into a real airframe

*required

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