Any Changes To KC-X Contract Will Require “High Level” Approval

Any Changes To KC-X Contract Will Require “High Level” Approval

By John Reed Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 5:03 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

In an effort to keep the $30 billion KC-X contract on track to deliver airplanes by the middle of the decade, any changes to the KC-X contract will have to be approved at the highest levels of the service and Pentagon leadership, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said today.

The service secretary told reporters today that the has a draft memo sitting on his desk, “the focus of which is to not allow changes to the tanker contract without high level review.”

Donley was speaking in response to a question about the potential for requirements creep on the new tanker during a breakfast with reporters in Washington.


The secretary went on to point out that both the Air Force and KC-46-maker Boeing are not likely to desire any major changes, considering that the deal for the new jet is a fixed price contract. He noted that the service and Pentagon leadership have not yet figured out just how high up in DoD bureaucracy “high level” approval will be.

This comes about a week after Donley told lawmakers that he would work to tell them about any changes to the KC-X contract, despite there being no legal requirement to do so.

Join the Conversation

Aurora April 6th, 2011 at 6:30 am

Will this wonderful new policy also apply to the F-35 and the San Antonio class ships? How about the new CVN?

James April 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am

The air force leadership has become a joke since they bought into the man child presidents cancellation of the F22. Of course the good guys first had to be purged by gates.…

redneck April 6th, 2011 at 9:27 am

F-22, what a joke. Can’t even support a war in a bananna republic. Shoud had bought only 20 and ended it. It will never see action.

COTR April 6th, 2011 at 9:32 am

So if they have to mod the contract to add a new task order, they have to ask mother may I? Do they have to go to the Secretary for every contract action now? I’m not sure if the Secretary carries a warrant but I can guarantee he doesn’t have enough time in his schedule to become the defacto contracting officer for KC-X.

Sounds like we can get rid of the PM and the SPO and just leave it up to the senior staffs and Congress to manage. Money savings already!!

momomimamo April 6th, 2011 at 10:16 am

USA was over, switzerland take power , or no…

Allen James April 6th, 2011 at 10:49 am

JSF is a worthless, in fact a completely worthless Platform. Stealth is Dead thinks to the New Russian SAM IADS. JSF should be scraped immediately. Since 1999 when we lost our first F-117 on foreign soil during the Yugoslavia Campaign, most countries have exploited the stealth technology. In fact the F-117 was retired from Active Service in 2008. They are now sitting at Davis-Monthan AFB in the “Bone-Yard”.
Instead of scraping Stealth Technology the DoD continued on beating a dead horse while listening to Lockheed Marin as well as all the Retired AF Generals that worked this project, then of course went to work for Lockheed to influence the outcome and funding.

Allen James April 6th, 2011 at 10:49 am

We are now stuck with a useless overpriced platform that was designed in the closet with NO Connectivity in the Battlespace, NO internal Air-Air “Gun” Weapon for Close Combat, NO capability to destroy any major target without integrating “Pylons” due to a non-existent “Internal Weapons Bay” (of course this makes the aircraft really non-stealth hanging pylons), NO connectivity to any legacy platform including F-22, NO Engine Inlet protection for RCS, Of course AFTER Burner or Augmenter section for Inferred Detection…. Hummmmmm!!! Let’s continue to purchase these worthless overpriced platforms to keep Lockheed Martin in existence at a whopping $150,000,000.00 + Each!!!

Allen James April 6th, 2011 at 10:50 am

This Program Needs to be cancelled immediately and the funds utilized to benefit the Warfighter. Continue the effort to Upgrading the Connectivity we need in the Battlespace. For the Price we pay for this one useless none-conductive platform we could build Global Hawk, F-16, F-18, F-15 with a Large Warhead as a one-time use platform and never run out of direct fire weapons. I understand the people in Texas need Jobs and the President needs votes, but this platform is useless…. Our allies know the limitation and numerous countries are now purchasing other platforms to help in critical situations when we must drive in. We are wasting time here….

asdf April 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm

it’s not dead, not nearly, but f-35 won’t be survivable against any average-good (not very good) opponent in the 2030 time frame.

asdf April 6th, 2011 at 12:09 pm

and that’s only ~15 yrs from its IOC.
unless we will see an upgrade like the hornet.

William C. April 6th, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Allen James seems content going around and spamming this in topics that have nothing to do with the F-35.

According to him the F-35 isn’t survivable but upgraded F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are?

asdf April 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm

nope. but in the usaf there is the 22 for that.
in that case the 35 is way better, except for the wvr maybe. usa should have a limited number of top end airframes (f-22 or f/a-xx) and much of the rest (bombing and esp. CAS) should be put to the uavs imo.
+ you don’t need stealth for everyone imo. legacy + towed decoy + harm + lower operating costs = win
i wouldn’t be suprised if the 35 would have a towed decoy eventually, since its LO is not that useful against look-up SAM radars (unless the plane is flying directly towards it).

Lance April 6th, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Dont matter keep the KC-135s in shape till we can afford to start to buy KC-46s.

Lance April 6th, 2011 at 3:03 pm

The F-35 is a joke and till we re-buy F-22s we have to keep F-15s and Navy F-18s current to keep them in flying shape.

Allen James April 6th, 2011 at 3:23 pm

William,

You have no idea.…. or your question would have never been asked… Congratulations!!! You must be employed by Lockheed Martin… The only Spam is the Truth.…

pfcem April 6th, 2011 at 8:37 pm

You could at least keep your ignorant/disingenuous rants about the JSF to proper places.

Guest April 6th, 2011 at 10:50 pm

In fact WC does marketing for them.

Guest April 6th, 2011 at 10:53 pm

So the same people that sold out the war-fighter for political bribes now have to ok Boeing’s obvious plans to raise the price — don’t think Boeing is all that worried.

*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