McCain Says Single Tanker Bid OK

McCain Says Single Tanker Bid OK

UPDATED: Sarkozy To Press Obama On Tanker

Today’s headline in The Hill tells the story: “McCain Endorses Pentagon Process On Tanker Bid As Legitimate.”

Sen. John McCain singlehandedly reshaped the tanker competition at least twice, first when he began asking questions about it and again when he wrote a letter that drove the Pentagon to change its competition.


My colleague Roxana Tiron asked McCain for his views and the story says he told her that he “was not worried about Boeing, the only competitor left for the contract.”

The most significant quote in Roxana’s story has the senator pledging to keep a hawk eye on the tanker contract as Boeing moves forward: “I guarantee you we will monitor it [the contract] very closely. I promise you.”

Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a host of other French, European Union and German officials warned the U.S. that Northrop’s decision could affect trans-Atlantic trade. The view among Europeans is that such a decision could not have been made without government knowledge and, perhaps, intervention. The sting of Northrop having once won the competition and then, in their view, having been forced to withdraw after best value was dropped from the new competition, is sharp.

AP quoted French government spokesman Luc Chatel as saying “that France regrets the decision which ‘raises questions about whether competition rules are working properly.’”

Sarkozy will raise the issue with President Barack Obama at a March 30 private dinner, the spokesman told AP. Earlier in the day, the AP said that France’s Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche called the decision “an affront for France,” against which Paris should “react.”

European officials agreed. “It is highly regrettable that a major potential supplier would feel unable to bid for a contract of this type,” European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said in a statement, according to Deutche Welle. “The European Commission would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract.”

The German economics minister was critical as well. “Even in the acquisition of munitions, free competition should not be unilaterally restricted,” said Rainer Bruederle.

Join the Conversation

McCain is soon to be out of office, he can go tell all those Honeywell workers in Phoenix that the 767 and Rockwell Cockpit will be better for Iowa…This guy is the poster boy to Term Limits with the rest of the old coots in Congress and the Senate. The French Persident is coming to town March 30 too meet Obama so that should be good, what is Boeing going to do when the 787 cancellations start to come from the European Airlines…Thanks Dicks and Roberts…

Last time I checked, EU still runs a trade surplus with US. If they want to start a trade war, it’s fine with me.

It’s OK for France not to allow US contractors in there competitions. Why didn’t Airbus think to offer a smaller plane like Boeing did think to offer a bigger plane. I done to the war fighter and taxpayers. Having profits from US taxes go to a European company does not go well with this country. Plus Boeing has new tankers in service with Japan and Italy. Airbus does not have a new tanker in service.The A330 would require airport mods and the 767 would not. Boeing has over 50 yrs with tanker and Airbus does not, Airbus would make 6 planes in France while the plant is being built in Mobile. New plant new problems. These are several issues the Air Force is conceded about Airbus. It’s simple risk analysis.

In the end this comes down to more US jobs and companies paying US taxes. How else would the DOD pay for it.

McCain a Flip Flopper, can not trust that progressive RINO

Dave,
The U.S. has no money. The money for these “home-built” Boeing aircraft is coming from China, Japan and the U.K. (the three biggest lenders to our Treasury Department)! And how much Boeing content is coming from overseas?

And, by the way, do you and all the other Buy American types own any Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais or German cars? Or GM or Chrysler cars built in Mexico or Canada?

Taxpayer,

The US hase more money than any other nation. The problem is that big government spenders in the government continue to spend money on things they have no business spending money on (leaving less money for what they SHOULD be spending money on) & spending MORE money than the government takes in.

And there is a HUGE difference between a family car & a vital platform for national security.

McCain is twice the man any of the dodo, right wing fundamentalist a-holes who’ve hijacked the Republican party.

All United States Military hardware should be purchased and built in this country. Is Boeing built 100% in the United States? No. But it is a whole hell of a lot closer to it than the Airbus. And Buy American is a when you can, as much as you can (even though I own only Fords just to let you know) to encourage more American industry. You can still advocate Buy American even if it isn’t all you buy. Besides, having the Boeing plane and relying on an American company means that in a time or war or crisis, we have the whole operation and design/build team here, not in France or Europe where they are disconnected from us. Logistically, if all hardware is built over here, it is a lot better for a unified defensive anyway.

GI Joe ! You should change your ID to Barbie. So much hate will consume you.

As an ancient SAC aircraft commander and SAC war planner, the primary and overriding attribute of a tanker is : The largest available offload at a maximum distance.

In the Middle East and for European Centric missions, having a lesser offload at shorter ranges might be sufficient; however, if we consider the longer-range requirements to project airpower into the Pacific and East Asia areas, the inherent capabilities of a larger tanker become obvious.

So can the Boeing tanker compete on equal footing with the NG/Airbus version for missions in the Pacific?

Food for thought!

Spoken like a true liberal democrat!

I always thought defense procurement was buying the best equipment our warfighters needed and not necessarily jobs programs to keep Americans working. Would be nice if it did both. But when push comes to shove, support Americans by giving them the best hardware we can buy. Sure the French can be a pain in the ass. But they have fought on our side more times than anyone else in the history of the US. So if you really think it’s bad to build our tanker’s overseas, then be honest about it. Boeing is going to build this tanker in several countries besides the US.

Dick, have you ever seriously looked at French involvment during the past century? You may want to take a close look at France’s stand/actions in almost every opportunity they have had to support/help American causes world wide. What side do you think they were on in World War II? As far as military hardware goes I just want our men and women to have the best for their protection. God bless America!

Well, it all boils down to voters and money. Some day the U.S. is headed for the eclipse of our status as a world power, and outsourcing is speeding the process. When I was in Germany, it was amazing to me how many things were made by German manufacturers. In the U.S. pretty much all of what I wore and took pictures with etc was foreign.
If we continue to outsource our economy, we will reap the whirlwind.

By your argument, we should be having a A380 versus B747-8 tanker competition. Since we don’t have huge numbers of thirsty bombers flying huge distances anymore, the idea that the primary attribute of a tanker is maximum fuel load at maximum range is no longer valid. Its like saying having the biggest and longest range guns on your ships is the primary and overriding consideration for selecting naval ships.
Your point on needing a big tanker in some areas and a smaller tanker in others is valid though. It is just like in golf, you want the best combination of planes matched to the job. That might be why the US is buying 179 medium KC-X tankers, 179 larger KC-Y tankers, and possibly even bigger still KC-Z tankers.

“The German economics minister was critical as well. “Even in the acquisition of munitions, free competition should not be unilaterally restricted,” said Rainer Bruederle.“
What world does this person live on. EADS and Airbus exist solely because of protectionism. Like there was any competition for the NH-90 or A-400 just to name two of many.

this is the problem, USA make action just for US interest . you think USA fight hitler for save france? the destruction of europe have make the power of USA. see today US military presence in europe, you hink that was just for protect europe? France know US intention in ww2 , after french de gaulle have see one project for make one occupation in france and US control for take the opportunity for one time to have defeated the old french and english rivalties.
this is for that to many american hate france because this is the only country who will save his total independance

You think there are going to be alot of new jobs from BOEING then you are wrong. They will use the same suppliers and add minimal jobs to the plants that are already up, running and already making the 767 which will be built and then moved over to a MOD hangar for the tanker transformation. You talk about tax dollars, BOEING has some many tax exemptions from the states as is they are getting over. At least we could have taxed the forgeion companys some taxes. I am telling you now that BOEING has just wrote it’s own check from the government and we will pay dearly for this. If you have not for got BOEING outsources most of the A/C parts to coumtries that make less than $2.00 an hour

Who in the hell wants to by a A400 and Airbus does have a tanker out there that is proven. Just because BOEING already makes a tanker does not make it better. Thats like saying we have always done it this way.

The tanker program has been a political football and everyone knows it. Boeing won it the first time and McCain had that award shelved. Then Northrop/Grumman won it and the senators from Washington state started manuevers to block it. Then they changed the rules to favor Boeing again and Northrop/Grumman caved into the political garbage going on in DC. If congress wnats sole source, they should simply fund it that way and don’t require an open comeptition. The pork has been done that way form the beginning.

If Dave were correct in his assertion about risk assessment, then Boeing would be unqualified to bid. If one looks at Boeing’s 10+ year contracting history (limited to US) it reads like a contracting hall of shame. Boeing is not concerned about the fixed price nature (USAF idiots for adopting this) because they know that the specifications are full of flaws they intend to exploit in the form of ECP’s, wherein they will “Get well.” If contract performance was credibly a part of this solicitation as acquisition regulations require, then Boeing would not be considered qualified… Internationally, Boeing’s track record is much the same as domestically — they are an international disgrace. As far as the size of the required airframe, that entire aspect of the current procurement is highly suspect, given the AOA, and specifications of the last procurement. Clearly the USAF has either acted with incompetence (usual for the service), of decided to bow to political pressures from the esteemed Dicks (boy is his name right on). It is time to get Congress of of the procurement business and focused on their constitutional duties. Bottom line, Boeing has been grazing at the public trough for far too long. They are yet to be held accountable. They can’t even produce a credible system integration for the virtual fence for DHS!!! Look at the billions that were flushed down the rat hole on the NRO’s Future Image Architecture with nothing to show.

It is time for the government to hold Boeing and other contractors accountable. Boeing’s track record is dismal, and amongst the worst, yet we keep going back for more. Sole source for the tanker produce indictments last time, why should we expect anything different this time. The current tanker solicitation is a travesty/sham, and exposes the USAF and DoD for just what they are. When a major aerospace firm makes a reasonable conclusion that they can’t credibly competed because the specification is “stacked”, that gives everyone cause for concern over the ethics with which the US government is conducting business.

In the international community, and in particular with our EU allies, we look like a bunch of self serving, protectionist, idiots, who are indifferent to competitive forces. The comments about trade surplus in favor of the EU, if that was focused on military, then I think the equation would be shifted dramatically in favor of the US.

McCain says it’s okay?.…and that makes it so? A no-competition contract for billions of dollars is okay? And he says Congress will have to monitor it closely.….who does he think he’s kidding? Our DOD acquisition “machine” is famous for poor program management. McCain has it all wrong. I wonder what percentage of this Boeing aircraft or the refueling boom is manufactured in Arizona.…that’s worth a look. Check the Wall Street Journal this week (8–12 Mar) for at least two articles on the subject, the latest appearing on the WSJ’s Editorial page, sounding the alarm against having only one bidder. And this is the same USAF that spawned Darlene Druyan (sp?) and produced the Boeing scandal where that corporation’s top leadership was ousted and (as I recall) someone high on the Boeing food chain spent time in the Federal Pen. What is McCain thinking? This is the same guy who campaigned to be the President! What a moron!!

The europeans can suck it. That’s that.

“United” we stand, divided we fall”

If all of you would slow down, read the comments above, “hear” each other.. sense and comprehend, understand, the short and long term effects of the division that splits our families, our friends, our fellow Americans, one fromthe other, then the eventual cancer that will destroy us all will become very visible. Look. Listen.

Some folks have mentioned the A330 won the last USAF competition because it was the better plane. I may have read too many conspiracy theories on the net, but I wonder if any political payback is involved for allied participation in Iraq/Afghanistan. I see the US Army and Homeland Security buying Eurocopters. The USAF is procuring C-27J from Italy. The US Navy tried to get a British/Italian helicopter for Marine One. Aside from the technical merits of the A330, I wonder if the Europeans are miffed that the US is not upholding its part of a backroom deal made by President Bush.

No, Leo. It’s more of a case of the Air Force not being smart enough. Instead of the RFP they issued, which included cost factors based on replicating the old KC-135 footprint, they should have used a price-of-gas-guzzled-per-price-of-gas-delivered metric. That would have provided a unit cost based performance metric which could have provided a window to buying more capability (which I understand they need). Why buy an old car, when you need a new one? Plus, they should have required multiple platforms from each bidder (such as same footprint (same KC-135 refueling capacity) and bigger footprint (KC-30 replacement)) to fairly evaluate whether they were getting the best bang for the buck. They didn’t do this, and are settling for a second-best solution again.

No, but we’ll have quite a few thirsty fighters flying longer distances, and the axiom of “Max fuel at max range” still obtains

split the order

Why give the french the contract . When we the U.S. Have so many people out of work. Why pay thur the nose to buy some thing from a foreign country.We can build it here and keep the money here. But you watch Obama will knuckle under and let the french have the contract. What is happening is the french are beating their chest and sounding off about what they will do. But If the ball was in their court they would keep every thing in their country.

The fundamental driver behind this discussion and contract is whether or not Boeing can deliver to the warfighter what they need by the time they need it. There is currently no contractor with a history of delivering on cost, on schedule what is needed by the time needed primarily because of flawed procurement and acquisition strategies and political intervention.

Those of us who have served and now have children or even grandchildren serving our Nation, need to really think about what is important to us and the life and freedom we enjoy AND the best way we can influence this in the Nation’s interest.

Which Fords? The ones built in Mexico, Japan, South Korea or the US? GM shuts down American plants and will import 50k units from China and build a new plant in Brazil. My Honda Ridgeline is almost 80% American Parts assembled in a former GMC plant, more than many “American” cars.____The Airbus tanker would actually have more American content than the Boeing one will.

The US runs a 4 to 1 surplus with the EU on defense products.

Silly arguments based on misinformation. the A330 MRTT is in test flights with the Royal Australian Air Force. click on the website below for a video refueling F-16s from all three points. That airplane would require some modification would be available to US Air Force in 2013. Boeing can only show you an illustration because the Japanese and Italian models do not meet US requirements.

http://​video​.google​.com/​v​i​d​e​o​s​e​a​r​c​h​?​q​=​A​i​r​b​u​s​+​A​330…

I want our men and women in uniform to have the best damn equipment available, period. It’s very sad that this turned on politics.

A Veteran

I have no fear of the beneficial outcome of a one-bidder contract if John McCain is watching the process. The entire country would be in better shape than it is now if he were President, and it would have been in much better shape in 2000 if the Bush Team’s dirty tricks hadn’t changed the outcome of the primary. We would have had bin Laden’s head on a pike and a deeply subdued Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a staunch ally against Iran.

Wrong argument. The Germans are still flying F-4s and CH-53s. They can’t buy all US stuff. The A-400 is filling a gap between the C17 (too big and too expensive) and the C130 that is not strategic. The French have E-3 and KC135s. Half of Europe is flying F-16s.
In terms of European penetration of the US market, beside couple of C-27s and the Coast Guard which are smart enough to buy the best for their mission… nothing

Awesome response Rob. I like it!

I have no problem with the Germans buying the A400, but there wasn’t a competition, they had a sole source deal with Airbus. No option for anyone else to compete and submit their own design. The NH-90 was again procured as a sole source development deal. No competition. For that matter the Eurofighter was the same way. Sure there are a lot of F-16s flying, but not in Britian, Germany, France, or Italy. They developed the Eurofighter. Again, no competition. I could go on. Sorry, for the Germans to argue that having an RFP that they don’t have a suitable contender for is protectionism is two faced.

I have read all of the above and I am still of the opinion that cour core military equipment needs to be built in this country. I can see the day that shipping across the Atlantic could be a real problem. And after participating in FRELOC in 1966 my opinion of the French Goverment is not great. Let them make their money off the Russians. As far as the size of the load is concerened, Gen Schwartz stated this past winter that we would buy what we had money for and that would mean that we not always got quite what we wanted.

So why no A380 or 747–8 Tanker? Basically more smaller tankers wthat can be in more places at once is better. Having a mix of medium, big, and potentially bigger tankers is better. For US air defense support, how often do we need a huge tanker? How big of tankers do we need to support the USN fighters or in places like Iraq or Afghanistan? $10Billion saved on fuel and who knows how many on infrastructure is a pretty good trade-off for capability you never use. This is only KC-X, KC-Y will be bigger.

Need we remind France that if it weren’t for us they’d be speaking German now?

Northrop Grumman content and American jobs creation was significantly greater than Boeing’s. Airbus was going to build the airplanes from scratch, here in the US. So for those of you that wanted to buy american, Boeing is not the one to pick.

I’m all for giving back to the french similar disresepct we get from them, but the Northrop solution made more american jobs.

Arent they also building the Navys new ASW model 767?

Gray Eagle,

No, MOST SAC air commanders know that THE the primary and overriding attribute of a tanker is : Refueling the largest number of recievers as quickly & efficiently as possible. For that you need large numbers of tankers — which require SMALLER tankers. The FACT is that we do not even utilize the full fuel offload capacity of the KC-135.

We have supported operations in the Pacific just fine with the KC-135. And for the comparatively few missions where more fuel offload is needed, that is what the smaller number of KC-10/KC-Y are for.

It is the KC-30 which can not compete. It is LARGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 has a max fuel load 110,000 lbs less.

McCain figured he already wacked Boeing’s weewee 2 times in public so now they’ve learned their lesson.
RIGHT !
The only logical move for Northrup/EADS was to no-bid this time around…
Only in the US can you win an order TWICE fair and square, make the promised investments in-country, and in the end get nothing for the investment.
Good luck Boeing and try not to get caught with your hand in the cookiejar this time.

Europe buys twice as much American military products than the other way around there is thus an unequal balance of trade , given that the military industrial complex is pretty much the only major industry left in the US a buy European policy will be felt in that industry , remember that US stuff is already not always very attractive due to ITAR rules … .

The KC330 or A330 MRTT has won quite a few head on competitions in other countries so it cant be that bad .

A “buy European” retaliation rather *

The Navy is smart enough to use the same airplane for two purposes. The 737 airframe is currrently used as a transport/freight aircraft and is being built for antisubmarine/patrol aircraft. That means that many of the parts will suffice for both aircraft (saves money, etc.). Too bad the Air Force isn’t smart enough to use the C-17 which they already use for transport/freight for the refueling mission. Why hasn’t Locheed Martin tried to bid to use the C-17 airframe. Did the Air Force purposly write the specifications to rule out the C-17 in favor of the 767.

To much airframe mods to do to it because of the boom and the way the cargo bay is laid out. Doing cargo and fuel would become a pain.

Lou,

What tanker out there does Airbus have that is proven?

*

Tony C,

What rules have changed to Favor Boeing? It was CONGRESS which demanded another competion even though the USAF/DOD had rejected the KC-30.

*

Taxpayer,

No, there is no cost factor based on replicating the old KC-135 footprint. This is KC-X, which it to replace the now retired KC-135E & some KC-135R, the KC-10 will be replaced by the KC-Y (THAT is the solicitation where greater capacity will be more important than size & weight) & the remaining KC-135R will be replaced by KC-Z.

*

Eric,

Just because the A330 has been chosen by other nations DOES NOT make it right for the US. We have very different requirements. KC-X alone is for more tankers than the rest of the world combined & it represents just 1/3 of our future tanker fleet.

Sure it doesnt ( politically ) … , the A330 MRTT is just as proven as Boeings 767 offerings .

Magically the KC330 would be the “right” aircraft depending on who gets elected as it was the right aircraft last time round .

Would you please say it in French!!

I totally agree. France and the rest of the smelly EU get subsudies form thier countries. So too hell wih them keep the Tanker in our country no mater what.

Eric,

No the A330 MRTT is not as proven as the KC-767. There are FOUR operational KC-767s with two mre to bocome operational this year & a further two more next year. There are NO operational KC-30 ATM with the FIRST two likley to become operationa around the same time as the 5th & 6th KC-767…

No the KC-30 was NOT the right aircraft the last time around — read the GAO ruling.

McCain has cost the taxpayers a lot of money with the Tanker deal rebiding it twice. He should be ashamed of himself. Doesn’t he work for U.S. taxpayers and working people here in the United States. He seems to have one agenda and that is to undermine Boeing and do not know why. He would be better serve doing his job rather than getting on his soap box.

*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