Comments on: McCain Says Single Tanker Bid OK http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:55:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: B.D.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-23261 B.D. Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:50:38 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-23261 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. 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.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21709 pfcem Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:08:58 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21709 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. 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.

]]> By: david maruthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21661 david marut Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:50:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21661 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. 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.

]]> By: KoolKhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21621 KoolK Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:48:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21621 Would you please say it in French!! Would you please say it in French!!

]]> By: Erichttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21615 Eric Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:28:21 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21615 Magically the KC330 would be the "right" aircraft depending on who gets elected as it was the right aircraft last time round . Magically the KC330 would be the “right” aircraft depending on who gets elected as it was the right aircraft last time round .

]]> By: Erichttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21614 Eric Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:26:50 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21614 Sure it doesnt ( politically ) ... , the A330 MRTT is just as proven as Boeings 767 offerings . Sure it doesnt ( politically ) … , the A330 MRTT is just as proven as Boeings 767 offerings .

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21576 pfcem Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:07:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21576 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. 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.

]]> By: Williamhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21572 William Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:47:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21572 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. 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.

]]> By: Ron Cumminshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21561 Ron Cummins Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:12:42 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21561 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. 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.

]]> By: Erichttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21553 Eric Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:39:37 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21553 A "buy European" retaliation rather * A “buy European” retaliation rather *

]]> By: Erichttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21552 Eric Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:38:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21552 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 . 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 .

]]> By: noway Josehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21551 noway Jose Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:29:52 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21551 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. 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.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21545 pfcem Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:59:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21545 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. 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.

]]> By: Navy vethttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21544 Navy vet Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:57:39 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21544 Arent they also building the Navys new ASW model 767? Arent they also building the Navys new ASW model 767?

]]> By: Rich Donofifohttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21542 Rich Donofifo Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:49:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21542 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. 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.

]]> By: Williamhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21532 William Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:29:12 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21532 Need we remind France that if it weren't for us they'd be speaking German now? Need we remind France that if it weren’t for us they’d be speaking German now?

]]> By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21520 Curt Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:49:03 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21520 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. 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.

]]> By: Georgehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21517 George Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:35:51 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21517 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. 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.

]]> By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21518 Curt Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:35:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21518 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 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.

]]> By: Guesthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/10/mccain-says-single-tanker-bid-ok/#comment-21511 Guest Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:52:34 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=13597#comment-21511 Awesome response Rob. I like it! Awesome response Rob. I like it!

]]>