I don't think it's such a big surprise. There's no way they could've held the competition under such tight timelines and NOT expected to be criticized by the losing side and their supporters for whatever choice they made. Not to mention the ripe appellate field they would have opened up for lots of pickings.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12053 times:
Just what the new RFP will specify is now the big question. I suspect that will depend on what congress says along with the next president. Boeing will now lobby harder to keep the extra fuel credit language out of the RFP so the "right size" 767 can prevail. But keep in mind there are also at least one or two air-mobility type studies in the works and those will also likely shape the next RFP. If those lean to more airlift needs, then a larger aircraft may be sought.
Quote: “They’re basically scrapping it,” says Sam Sackett, a spokesman for Congressman Todd Tiahrt. “The congressman had requested more time and that’s exactly what’s happening. They apparently acknowledged serious problems in the manner that they tried to force a French tanker on the Air Force.”
AviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 566 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11873 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4): Calling AMARC, get those E models to Witchita for new engines and where they a parked throughout the states Preflight and get the crews requalified.
The 135s that are in service now are more than addequately meet the demands of the armed forces; they aren't going to need to add capacity anytime soon. Futhermore, these birds have been flying for 50+ years, this delay isn't going to make any real difference in the long run.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11871 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 14): When did it become so hard to buy some freakin airplanes. The whole process needs revamped, because it sucks ass.
This program is a victim of a much bigger problem facing the United States. That of the outsourcing of jobs and the manipulation of the entire legislative process by special interest groups. When you have those groups fighting each other as they have done on this program, you get this outcome.
What I find most surprising here is why did they even allow EADS to participate considering that in many congressional minds, a European (foreign) aircraft was unacceptable. So unless another American company has a commercial aircraft platform ready to go (which they don't) it will have to go to Boeing by default. So this entire process was truly a waste of time and money. NG/EADS would be fools to try again, they will ultimately lose (again).
SpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11792 times:
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 17): What I find most surprising here is why did they even allow EADS to participate considering that in many congressional minds, a European (foreign) aircraft was unacceptable.
I agree. Even If the best tanker for the job is the EAD'S/NG tanker, due to politic's I dont think the US Airforce will be "allowed to buy it".
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4214 posts, RR: 30 Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11745 times:
Quoting Aither (Reply 19): At least they make sure Boeing get too much money military contracts. For only that reason, it's worth to compete.
I think it would be worth it to compete because if Boeing pitches the KC-777, NG/EADS can now pitch the 330F airframe. Maybe even throw in a little GEnX action while they're at it. There's no way the USAF will be able to field the new KC-X on their originally planned time line so both suppliers can now pitch their latest and best offering available.
Gsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11718 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21): I think it would be worth it to compete because if Boeing pitches the KC-777, NG/EADS can now pitch the 330F airframe. Maybe even throw in a little GEnX action while they're at it. There's no way the USAF will be able to field the new KC-X on their originally planned time line so both suppliers can now pitch their latest and best offering available.
Unfortunately that isn't how it will work. Boeing will roll out the -200AT and say that is it.
The issue here is not the tanker, but keeping an EADS production line out of the United States. Now that they have done that, they will say the -200AT is what the Air Force wants (doesn't matter what the Air Force says).
Big gamble and a lot of money now to the Obama campaign. If McCain wins, it will be interesting.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7841 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11706 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 6): If the Congress doesn't force the issue now (and I am sure it will not) no member can claim the troops come first.
When talking about the troops coming first you need to look at various things like length of troop deployments and time at home between deployments, benefits like the GI Bill, taking care of vets long term and how hard the administration has fought giving Agent Orange compensation to deep water sailors exposed and having the identified conditions, etc. Then look at the suicide rate, the increase of officers and enlisted personnel who were considered career now leaving the service. Throw in the abnormally high percentage of troops in Iraq who are on anti-depressants and other meds and you have a pretty good outline of what is needed for the troops to come first.
In reality, the tanker is pretty far down the list when it comes to putting the troops first. Taking care of the troops means that if the bloody B-52s can still fly then the bloody KC-135s can still fly.
Quote: "Northrop Grumman entered this competition in good faith and proposed the most modern, most capable tanker available, at the best value to the American taxpayer. While we understand the complexities of this procurement, we are greatly concerned about the potential future implications for the defense acquisition process."
Boeing has no statement at this stage, either it is late, or it is being developed in Japanese or Italian. Possibly the people who write them are out on strike. Rumours are about they want 6 months to come up with a statement to cope with the change.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7904 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11655 times:
This is funny. At least we didn't spend a whole lot of money for nothing.
On the bright side, doing this will get us higher technology equipment.
On the minus side, this will make it (theoretically) weaker to fight WW-III for a certain amount of time. But I am sure this doesn't trouble Lord Boeing at all, who has essentially dictated that USAF not employ new tankers for now. All hail the powerful wise ones, our Boeing lords.