Page 5 of 5

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:23 pm
by kc135topboom


Quoting Zeke (Reply 199):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):

There will still be well over 400 KC-135s, plus 65 B-52s, 65 B-1s, 20 B-2s over 100 C-5s, and 190 C-17s. Theose facilities will be used doing depot level maintenance (equil to a "D" check) anyway.

Depot level maintenance should include all checks, not just D checks (other checks may only take a few hours)....and I would think tanker maintenance facilities will remain tanker facilities ?

Or are you suggesting that the USAF does not do the other checks ?

No, the USAF does these checks, just at different flying hours levels than commerical aircraft. The USAF calls them Phase Inspections, Phase 1, done every 50 hours, slightly longer than a commerical aircraft "A" check. Phase 2 inspections are done (varies by type) at 150-400 hours, again slightly longer than a commerical aircraft "B" check. Phase 3 inspections (again varies by type) are done every 450-650 flying hours, earlier than a "C" check. A phase 3 inspection will hanger a KC-135 for 7-10 days. Depot Level maintenance "D" checks are done between every 2,000-4500 flying hours. This maintenance will take up to 60 days for a KC-135, but usually only about 21 days.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 199):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
I would not be surprised to see Boeing offer a tanker version of the B-767-200ERF, B-767-200LRF, B-767-300ERF, and B-777-300LRF all together. The GAO report does not limit them to their original offer, nor is EADS/NG limited to their original offer.

Doubt it, I think the 767-300/400 is geometry limited with a boom under the tail in takeoff and landing configurations, and anything over the 767-200 length eats into the fuel burn.

The take-off flair rotation for the KC-135 and KC-707/KE-3 is initially 3 degrees, then up to 15 degrees, a sort of double rotation. You are correct in your assumption as the Boom Pod extends below the aft fuselage. IIRC, the KC-10 also has a double rotation. Most people don't notice because it happens fast and most pilots do it very smoothly.

You are correct. A Boeing proposal including the tanker versions of the B-767-300ERF or B-777-200LRF will burn more fuel. I believe the B-767-200LRF would burn more than a slightly lighter B-767-200ERF.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 199):
Beside that, I don't recall the RFP saying that more than one frame could be offered, the USAF is only funding one SRD phase, with 4 aircraft. Boeing would need to submit a conforming bid for each type offered.

There is/was no restriction on any OEM offering multipul aircraft bids, as only one would be selected.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 199):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 198):
This is still an option.

I don't, the USAF sees the new tanker as being more than just a tanker, e.g. while AAR or holding it is also an essential multi-role battlefield communications gateway. The new multi-role tanker has an important role in the digital battlefield as a gateway for high bandwidth data that exceeds the satellite bandwidth. The KC-135 is not a multi role aircraft, it does anything apart from AAR poorly.

It is still the cheapest option for the USAF. Apparently for the RAF, too. For the USAF, the KC-135 is also used as a battle management aircraft called "smart tanker" It does this mission at the same time as a combat refueling mission. The smart tanker equipment is palletized, and can move from one aircraft to another. Currently only KC-135R/Ts are used as smart tankers. Although overall they don't move much cargo, they still move some, and are also used in the medivac role. Additionally, the KC-135 can "over-pressureize", down to 1000' below sea level, which can be used to transport divers suffering from the "bends". This does limit the altitude of the KC-135 to FL-220 and below. For the RAF, they will now build 3 RC-135s (don't know the final designation, perhaps RC-135K, as it is not used by the USAF), from KC-135Rs. What is not known, at this time, is will the RAF get 3 KC-135Rs from the current USAF inventory, or will they select 3 KC-135As at AMARC, convert them to KC-135R, then convert them to RC-135s.

AAR-0705.pdf" target=_blank>http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Smart-AAR-0705.pdf

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-aircraft-with-rc-135s/?no_cache=1

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:13 pm
by Venus6971


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 200):
It is still the cheapest option for the USAF. Apparently for the RAF, too. For the USAF, the KC-135 is also used as a battle management aircraft called "smart tanker" It does this mission at the same time as a combat refueling mission. The smart tanker equipment is palletized, and can move from one aircraft to another. Currently only KC-135R/Ts are used as smart tankers. Although overall they don't move much cargo, they still move some, and are also used in the medivac role. Additionally, the KC-135 can "over-pressureize", down to 1000' below sea level, which can be used to transport divers suffering from the "bends". This does limit the altitude of the KC-135 to FL-220 and below. For the RAF, they will now build 3 RC-135s (don't know the final designation, perhaps RC-135K, as it is not used by the USAF), from KC-135Rs. What is not known, at this time, is will the RAF get 3 KC-135Rs from the current USAF inventory, or will they select 3 KC-135As at AMARC, convert them to KC-135R, then convert them to RC-135s.

There are plenty of flyable KC-135E models and still intact A models that can be modified, there are 2 E models parked on the compass row here on Tik that are flyable. No need to take from line units. There are alot of 62 and 63 models in AMARC set aside for foreign military sales(Singapore and Turkey recent buys)if they haven't yet been raped for parts. One time flight to Witchita for engine mods then to Greenville for Rivet joint mod along with other TCTO's and customer requests then to the UK for further indegious mods.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:46 pm
by redflyer
Seems the U.S. Congress is getting involved in this matter after all. A U.S. House subcommittee is proposing a defense spending bill that would:

1) Require the USAF to abide by the provisions of the earlier by requiring the USAF to seek a medium-sized tanker;
2) Prohibit extra points for larger tanker;
3) Require the tanker to be capable of refueling all planes currently in the U.S. inventory; and
4) USAF must consider the life-cycle costs over a 40 year period, not a 25 year period.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...815_tanker310.html?syndication=rss

Of course, this language is just a proposal at this point. It may never pass, especially if the Alabama delegation has any pull.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:50 pm
by TropicBird
The headline of this story is even more telling:


"Bill might give Boeing an edge in tanker bid"

The tanker provision in the spending bill was written by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the head of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that approved the legislation Wednesday. It also would:


Require the Pentagon to calculate "life cycle" costs for the proposed aircraft over 40 years -- not the 25 years used during the last competition. Under the bill, an independent group would help ring up the 40-year price tag for the tankers using the costs of fuel, maintenance and any new construction in their calculation. Boeing's supporters have said its tanker would be more fuel-efficient, and they have complained the military should consider the costs of building new hangars and runways to accommodate the Northrop Grumman-EADS model.

Force the Air Force to get congressional approval before spending any money on the tankers. That would guarantee Congress has a big role in the tanker contract.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/372935_tanker31.html

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:58 pm
by Tugger
The plot thickens:

Quote:
House defense appropriators on Wednesday fully funded the Air Force’s troubled mid-air refueling tanker, which has been at the center of a bitter lobbying fight between Boeing and Northrop Grumman .

But the $893 million appropriation for the tanker comes with a caveat: The Pentagon will have to consider how the project will impact U.S. jobs and the defense industrial base in its evaluation criteria for contractors.

House defense appropriators are directing the Pentagon to follow an already existing law that calls on the Secretary of Defense to consider the national technology and industrial base in developing and implementing plans for each major defense acquisition program. The $35 billion tanker program qualifies as a major acquisition.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/d...rthrop-tanker-jobs-2008-07-30.html

I hate this kind stuff because while in some ways it is a smart and good thing (you do not want to lose domestic capabilities and technological capacities) it becomes an impossible to verify, numbers game. Each side gives numbers which may or may not come true so they end up being meaningless.

Tugg

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:31 pm
by Revelation


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 202):
Seems the U.S. Congress is getting involved in this matter after all. A U.S. House subcommittee is proposing a defense spending bill that would:

1) Require the USAF to abide by the provisions of the earlier by requiring the USAF to seek a medium-sized tanker;
2) Prohibit extra points for larger tanker;
3) Require the tanker to be capable of refueling all planes currently in the U.S. inventory; and
4) USAF must consider the life-cycle costs over a 40 year period, not a 25 year period.

The new RFP can be written to favor either product. When push comes to shove, Congress is the one who writes the budget, and it looks like at least some members of Congress are shoving.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 202):
Of course, this language is just a proposal at this point. It may never pass, especially if the Alabama delegation has any pull.

Yes, this is just at the House sub-committee level. It will be interesting to see what hits the president's desk in an election year. The article goes on to say:

Quote:
The subcommittee's chairman, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., inserted the tanker language into the bill after nonstop lobbying by the No. 2 Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton.

So now we know who's shoving.

And:

Quote:
The bill will be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee after Congress' August recess, and it may be one of the few spending measures that are approved this year.

The defense-spending bill is considered a must-pass measure, as it provides money for troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems like the gloves are off!

Quoting Tugger (Reply 204):
The Pentagon will have to consider how the project will impact U.S. jobs and the defense industrial base in its evaluation criteria for contractors.

Yes, this will be quite a pissing contest!

The ball appears to be in NG and Alabama's court now.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:46 pm
by Lumberton
Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
Yes, this is just at the House sub-committee level.

Yes, but it is a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO), who has made references to the provision of law referred to in the article below. (I watched him query Deputy Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, John Young, about this provision during the hearing earlier this month; Mr. Young did not respond, at least not in open session.) The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman John Murtha D-PA) is also insisting that the Air force follow and consider the impact on the industrial base.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

There are two committees in either branch of Congress that hold a preponderance of sway in Defense matters: Armed Services and Appropriations. Both committee chairmen in the House have serious misgivings about giving this deal to EADS. On the senate side, the Armed Services Committee Chairman is Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who has already let his sentiments be known. The only unknown at this point is the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Patty Murray serves on this committee, but it is chaired by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), in whose state the KC-30 boom would be manufactured. However, Senator Byrd has been ill of late, and it is speculated that if he is forced to retire, then Senator Inouye (D-HI) would be the next chairman. I do not know where Senator Inouye stands on the tanker issue, but it would be stunning if he would take his own party to task in a presidential election year over "french jobs". This one is too easy to beat John McCain about the head and shoulders.

So, yes, it is just a subcommittee, but as you point out:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
When push comes to shove, Congress is the one who writes the budget, and it looks like at least some members of Congress are shoving.


[Edited 2008-07-31 10:57:34]

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:07 pm
by TropicBird
Another web-site worth "listening" too. It has three radio spots critical of Boeing in the tanker battle. I guess they are running these on local radio in Alabama.

www.bettertanker.org

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:13 pm
by Lumberton
And the always worth visiting Tanker War Blog is responding to the ads.
http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/2008/.../kc-30-supporters-hit-new-low.html

Quote:
Fresh from swift boating General Handy, KC-30 supporters hit a new low this week by forming a front group called Alabamians to Build American Tankers (ABAT). They are running a smear campaign with radio ads and have set up their own website at bettertanker.org.
. . .
Just who is ABAT and who is funding them?

We would guess the members are a select group of people who either have been brainwashed by the local papers and pandering politicians or those who would benefit from an Airbus facility in Mobile. This seems to be the case as a news story on ABAT lists Mobile locals Bryan Lee, attorney Palmer Hamilton, real estate developer Paul Wesch, and accountant Mike Thompson as members.

We will not venture a public guess on who is funding them, but we probably all know who that is already.

. . .
Boeing issued this response to the ABAT ads:

We have no idea who this group is or how it is funded. Boeing is the largest aerospace employer in Alabama. These ads are an affront to our more than 3,000 hard-working, highly-talented employees and their families in the state. They are also clearly a sign of desperation in support of our competitor. The ads do a disservice to our customer, the men and women who serve our country, more than 160,000 Boeing employees, and to Northrop-Grumman/EADS.

The GAO ruled that the recent tanker competition was seriously flawed and that the award to Northrop-Grumman/EADS should be recompeted. Our focus will remain on the new competition and getting the best technology to the warfighter and the best value to the U.S. taxpayer.

Subtlety has long left the building.

Prediction: this one goes to the next administration if the USAF/DOD does not follow the GAO rulings to the letter. Which begs the question: if, as the GAO determined, the NG/EADS bid should have not formed the basis for an award, why hasn't the proposal been declared "non-conforming"? There may be a valid reason the USAF/DOD has not done so, but I have yet to hear it.

[Edited 2008-07-31 14:18:40]

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:20 pm
by keesje


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 208):
d the always worth visiting Tanker War Blog is responding to the ads.
http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/2008/....html


they are doing the same we do, how dare they Big grin

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:39 pm
by XT6Wagon


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 203):
Require the Pentagon to calculate "life cycle" costs for the proposed aircraft over 40 years -- not the 25 years used during the last competition. Under the bill, an independent group would help ring up the 40-year price tag for the tankers using the costs of fuel, maintenance and any new construction in their calculation

The 40 years helps the KC30 though in that its LARGE costs to bring bases into being capible of handling enough KC30 frames gets diluted across 40 years instead of 25. So a large fixed cost get spread across more years making it "cheaper". Thus in the Capiblity Vs Cost calculation it looks better.

Course this supposes that they actualy pay attention that both planes are NOT the same size as the KC135... and actualy investigate the real costs to deploy these planes unlike last time

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:41 am
by gsosbee


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 208):
Which begs the question: if, as the GAO determined, the NG/EADS bid should have not formed the basis for an award, why hasn't the proposal been declared "non-conforming"? There may be a valid reason the USAF/DOD has not done so, but I have yet to hear it.

This has been answered. The Air Force said NG conformed and the GAO could not find fault with the Air Force's position since the Air Force documented why they did what they did. This is what counts not some politician's interpretation of what is conforming.

The outstanding issue was NG's failure to positively state their airplane could refuel the entire US fleet. The Air Force asked NG, who said yes. Then the Air Force went back and said put it in writing and NG said what do you want us to say. The Air Force then said forge tit and used the verbal assurance. While the GAO would have preferred it in writing they saw enough to the the Air Force by.

The GAO went on to say that all of the other alleged performance issues with the NG airplane had been addressed, and the GAO had no beef with them.

I am afraid we haven't seen yet how ugly this is about to become. At this point a level playing field is non-existant. Everyone keeps saying no, but a split purchase is more than likely the only way the get something (at least one airplane) out of this within the next 5 years.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:00 am
by TropicBird


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 207):
Another web-site worth "listening" too. It has three radio spots critical of Boeing in the tanker battle. I guess they are running these on local radio in Alabama.

I found out those radio spots are running in Washington DC.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:45 am
by Ken777


Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
So now we know who's shoving.

Rep Murtha is a pretty tough guy (ex Marine with combat time in Vietnam if I recall correctly) and would have a rather powerful shove.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:14 am
by scbriml


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 202):
1) Require the USAF to abide by the provisions of the earlier by requiring the USAF to seek a medium-sized tanker;
2) Prohibit extra points for larger tanker;
3) Require the tanker to be capable of refueling all planes currently in the U.S. inventory; and
4) USAF must consider the life-cycle costs over a 40 year period, not a 25 year period.

Why not save a bunch of ink and just say the AF can select any tanker they want, as long as it says "Boeing" on the side?  rotfl 

It seems competition is a great thing as long as Boeing win. wink 

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:03 am
by EPA001


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 214):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 202):
1) Require the USAF to abide by the provisions of the earlier by requiring the USAF to seek a medium-sized tanker;
2) Prohibit extra points for larger tanker;
3) Require the tanker to be capable of refueling all planes currently in the U.S. inventory; and
4) USAF must consider the life-cycle costs over a 40 year period, not a 25 year period.

Why not save a bunch of ink and just say the AF can select any tanker they want, as long as it says "Boeing" on the side?

It seems competition is a great thing as long as Boeing win.

Could not agree with you more. This is a pathetic attempt to really force the order towards Boeing. Sure, there have been attempts before to do this, but such a proposal beats them all. So in the end people who think up proposed laws like this have only one reason to do this: they are so very, very afraid of the superior competition! And of course, they should be. Because "we all know" that the A330-MRTT really creams the Frankentanker in almost every way Big grin Big grin Big grin

Kind regards

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:15 am
by XT6Wagon


Quoting EPA001 (Reply 215):
Could not agree with you more. This is a pathetic attempt to really force the order towards Boeing. Sure, there have been attempts before to do this, but such a proposal beats them all. So in the end people who think up proposed laws like this have only one reason to do this: they are so very, very afraid of the superior competition! And of course, they should be. Because "we all know" that the A330-MRTT really creams the Frankentanker in almost every way

Yes, making the DOD comply with the origonal RFP without the USAF's "innovations" like ignoring the failure to meet KPPs, cooking the cost numbers, awarding credit illegaly, etc. is such a horrid abuse of power.

TO MAKE THIS CLEAR THE LAW GOING THROUGH CONGRESS IS ONLY FOR MAKING THE DOD COMPLY WITH THE ORIGONAL RFP AS SET OUT BY THE USAF. Its not for handing Boeing a win. Its not about pissing on the european people. Its not about certain people here who have thier ego wrapped up in Airbus.

I like the paraphrasing that goes on here. In much the same way I have to ask if you have stopped beating your wife and cut back on fornicating with goats. Phrasing items such that you bias the reader with completely misleading phrasing is just flat not approprate to this discussion. If you wish to PROVE that the US congress is giving it to boeing, how about you post ACTUAL quotes from the legislation that shows this.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:15 am
by EPA001


Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 216):
I like the paraphrasing that goes on here. In much the same way I have to ask if you have stopped beating your wife and cut back on fornicating with goats. Phrasing items such that you bias the reader with completely misleading phrasing is just flat not approprate to this discussion. If you wish to PROVE that the US congress is giving it to boeing, how about you post ACTUAL quotes from the legislation that shows this.

There is no need to get insulting or whatever over this issue. It would give you credit and would show some class if you could leave such things out.

Regarding your comments, over all the threads on this issue here on A-net there were many strongly biased and unproven statements. Not in the least from the Boeing supporters here. Actually, they were the majority of such statements.

Some Boeing supporters, quite a lot of them actually, still believe that the commercially not selling anymore B767 is still superior to the hot selling and continuously improving A330. No matter how much fact is presented to them contrary with their opinion. So you might use the same tone of language to them in this respect as well. But that is still lacking, right? Big grin Well, so be it.

Oh, and the original RFP was based on the original B767-T for the start, remember? Also remember the extra points paragraph to create a level playing field in this competition to begin with?

Regards.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:18 pm
by art
From article on www.defense-aerospace.com re: Murtha Summary of the FY09 Defense Appropriations Bill

Air Force
-- Provides full funding ($893 million) for the aerial refueling tanker program. The Committee directs the DoD to comply with the GAO findings concerning the tanker award protest, and directs that industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation of the tanker contract award. (Emphasis added—Ed.)

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The mark-up directs that “industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation of the tanker contract award,” but this is prohibited by federal procurement law. Insertion of this provision is a clear nudge for the Pentagon to favor Boeing’s tanker over its Northrop/EADS rival as it reruns the tanker competition.)


Am I right in thinking (according to the editor) that Congress is proposing an illegal measure? If it's illegal, it's illegal, isn't it? In which case the Bill can't become law. Well, at least I can't think of an executive that drafts a law knowing that the law contravenes another that is not being repealed/superceded in the draft.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:05 pm
by Lumberton


Quoting Art (Reply 218):
Am I right in thinking (according to the editor) that Congress is proposing an illegal measure? If it's illegal, it's illegal, isn't it? In which case the Bill can't become law. Well, at least I can't think of an executive that drafts a law knowing that the law contravenes another that is not being repealed/superceded in the draft.

You lost me here. The Congress makes the law. Yes, they have to follow the law, but they certainly have the consitutional authority to change laws. By inserting this requirement, it would mandate consideration of the industrial base for this procurement.

There is some disagreement as to what law requires exactly what. The exceptions to the "Buy American Act" provide for certain countries being considered equally with domestic manufacturers. All of the Airbus countries are covered under this exception. However, the law cited here by Congressman Murtha requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe procedures for consideration of the industrial base.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Are these conflicting requirements? Sure sounds like it. The legislation proposed by the House Armed Services Subcommittee would remove this conflict, or any ambiguity as to whether it is or is not required.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 211):
This has been answered. The Air Force said NG conformed and the GAO could not find fault with the Air Force's position since the Air Force documented why they did what they did. This is what counts not some politician's interpretation of what is conforming.

Can you provide a link? Of course the USAF disagrees with the GAO finding. Question is, now what? IMO, this could still go to Federal Claims Court for resolution unless the GAO backtracks and says mea culpa. I haven't seen the GAO change their opinion yet.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:28 pm
by Lumberton
Interesting development.
Nomination for top Air Force civilian post stalls

Quote:
The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday approved the nominations of two senior Air Force officers, but the nominee to fill the service's top civilian post may be stalled indefinitely.
. . .
But the votes on the other nominations came the same day Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates to warn that she intends to put a hold on Donley's nomination because of continued frustrations surrounding the Air Force's handling of the competition for the contract to build a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers.

Air Force and Defense Department officials, Cantwell wrote, "have not recognized the gravity of the flaws in the tanker acquisition process."

Earlier this year, the Air Force awarded a $35 billion contract for the tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman and EADS, the European parent company of Airbus. But Boeing Co., the losing bidder, filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, which ultimately sided with Boeing after finding several significant errors in the Air Force's selection process.

Boeing has planned to build its tanker, a modified 767 aircraft, at its plant in Everett, Wash.

GAO's findings prompted Gates to reopen the contract and place his top acquisition officer in charge of the new competition in lieu of having the Air Force oversee it.

But Cantwell said she is not convinced that the Pentagon will conduct a "fair rebid" on the tanker contract that addresses all of the problems found by GAO.

In addition, Cantwell told Gates that she is "concerned that the leadership of the Air Force and [Defense Department] have not fully considered serious national security issues, including several classified matter that I was briefed on by the intelligence community," Cantwell wrote.

The issues, she added, "raise troubling questions that are much broader than the selection of a new tanker."

Cantwell's hold on Donley's nomination will continue "until such time that I feel the Air Force and DOD have adequately addressed all these issues," she wrote.


RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:39 pm
by TropicBird


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 220):
Interesting development.
Nomination for top Air Force civilian post stalls

A July 15th letter from Sen's Levin and McCain creates an interesting spin on this subject. Look at the last paragraph regarding the C-17 matter (linked below). There is an open IG investigation concerning Boeing and the USAF working together to promote the buying of more C-17's (according to a previous McCain letter to the IG).


July 15th Levin/McCain letter....

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Sit.../July/Day25/071508levin_mccain.pdf

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:56 pm
by art


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 219):
Quoting Art (Reply 218):
Am I right in thinking (according to the editor) that Congress is proposing an illegal measure? If it's illegal, it's illegal, isn't it? In which case the Bill can't become law. Well, at least I can't think of an executive that drafts a law knowing that the law contravenes another that is not being repealed/superceded in the draft.

You lost me here. The Congress makes the law. Yes, they have to follow the law, but they certainly have the consitutional authority to change laws. By inserting this requirement, it would mandate consideration of the industrial base for this procurement.

Thanks for the link:

"A spokesman for subcommittee chairman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said the provision referred to 10 USC 2440, a law that says: "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations requiring consideration of the national technology and industrial base in the development of acquisition plans for each major defense acquisition program."

It was not immediately clear how that law squares with procurement rules that require the Pentagon to treat arms made in certain allied countries no differently than U.S. rivals'.

Your procurement laws and rules are in a bit of a mess, aren't they? Good lawmaking attempts to avoid this sort of confusion.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:53 am
by art


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 214):
It seems competition is a great thing as long as Boeing win.

One take on the tanker award might be that the interests of the USAF are of tertiary importance, the interests of the US taxpayer are of secondary importance and the interests of US industry are of primary importance. If those are the priorities and the politicians will only accept the contract going to Boeing, why don't the politicians agree to underwrite the costs of the A330 offer simply to keep Boeing's price reasonable (with the proviso that if Boeing won't play ball, they risk seeing the contract going to the A330).

I think if I were in a position to offer the A330 I might well tell the buyer that I was not prepared to do so again gratis while the outcome of the bid was apparently pre-ordained - in the sense that any selection in my favour will be overturned/refused funding by the politicians.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:25 am
by AirRyan


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 202):
Seems the U.S. Congress is getting involved in this matter after all. A U.S. House subcommittee is proposing a defense spending bill that would:

The 110th Congress will forever go down as the absolute worse Congress in the history of the Nation...

Quoting Tugger (Reply 204):
But the $893 million appropriation for the tanker comes with a caveat: The Pentagon will have to consider how the project will impact U.S. jobs and the defense industrial base in its evaluation criteria for contractors.

If that is the way it is to be than why don't NG just not bid and let Congress fund another no-bid contract? If Congress gave their constituents an option on the ballot in November to fire their elected offcial 2/3's of them wouldn't have to make the trip back to Washington....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
Yes, this is just at the House sub-committee level. It will be interesting to see what hits the president's desk in an election year. The article goes on to say:

If it's Obama he'll probably cancel the entire program and fund some socialist agenda instead...

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 206):
Congressman John Murtha D-PA) is also insisting that the Air force follow and consider the impact on the industrial base.

So much for having a competition decide the outcome of the bid....

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 213):
Rep Murtha is a pretty tough guy (ex Marine with combat time in Vietnam if I recall correctly) and would have a rather powerful shove.

The stupid phucker was actually even an enlisted Marine drill instructor who later rose the ranks to a Colonel - but he still sucumbed to Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker position - the dude's a first class moron if you ask this Marine....

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 216):
TO MAKE THIS CLEAR THE LAW GOING THROUGH CONGRESS IS ONLY FOR MAKING THE DOD COMPLY WITH THE ORIGONAL RFP AS SET OUT BY THE USAF. Its not for handing Boeing a win. Its not about pissing on the european people. Its not about certain people here who have thier ego wrapped up in Airbus.

The 110th Congress led by Nancy Pelosi recently garnered an amazing 9% approval rating - that's the kind of sh¡t one can expect from this group of illicit socilalist!

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:51 am
by Ken777


Quoting AirRyan (Reply 224):
If Congress gave their constituents an option on the ballot in November to fire their elected offcial 2/3's of them wouldn't have to make the trip back to Washington....

Actually we get to vote on 100% of the Members of the House and a third of the Senators. Throw in a new President & VP and there is ample opportunities to fire both individuals and parties.

The AF will be wise to hold off on a final decision until after the election and then get some overall guidance from the winners. Otherwise it can be a very difficult time for some AF Generals during the next Administration.

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:53 pm
by keesje


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 219):
The Congress makes the law. Yes, they have to follow the law, but they certainly have the consitutional authority to change laws. By inserting this requirement, it would mandate consideration of the industrial base for this procurement.

Who were to make sure the requirements would be not be changed by the USAF? Smells like saying A and doing B to me..