Article

2008-06-02 Home Front: Politix

Tanker Controversy: Questions the AF must answer

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Ike 2008-06-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views ] Top

#1 Remember, the French are fighting in Afghanistan now and just announced that they will help with rebuilding Iraq.

Posted by DK70 the scantily clad 2008-06-02 00:57|| 2008-06-02 00:57|| Front Page Top

#2 They still didn't cut them any slack on their debts, though. Shouldn't that be enough?

Posted by gorb 2008-06-02 02:13|| 2008-06-02 02:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Waah, waah, we cheated to get this contract and got caught and now we didn't get it! It's so unfaaaair!

Posted by gromky 2008-06-02 04:41|| 2008-06-02 04:41|| Front Page Top

#4 I was going to go through this polemic for Boeing but decided it was better to let Loren B Thompson,Ph.D. do so in his own words.

So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.

The Boeing proposal made sense 5 - 6 years ago, but Boeing got greedy and suborned an AF procurement official, Darlene Druyon, into signing off on a sweetheart lease deal. Darlene wound up in jail, the Boeing CEO & CFO were fired, and the AF screwed out of a tanker for 6 long years. Boeing screwed the pooch bigtime and has no one to blame but themselves. Times, technology, and AF requirements changed. Boeing didn't. They thought that they had the political muscle to force the AF to buy what they proposed instead of what the AF had asked for. I am embarrassed for them.

Further, I am not surprised at Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. I have dealt with this kind of academic whore for over 30 years. His article is sophistry, a dishonest restatement of Boeing talking points. From his earlier article, he clearly knows better but now is just flacking for Boeing, in a continuation of the dishonest behavior that cost Boeing this contract in the first place. His opinions may be purchased by the highest bidder and are not worth what his employers paid for them.

Posted by RWV 2008-06-02 09:33|| 2008-06-02 09:33|| Front Page Top

#5 1. Its longer ranged and higher performance. Stupid twit, read the specifications! Nothing about fuel economy there. Only performance specifications. IDIOT!

2. the Boeing airframe is DECADES old, and NOT the one the AF wanted. Thats why Boeing got sent back to the drawing board. Consider this Dr PhDork, the 767 was so dated that Boeing is NOT going to produce it anymore. And then they tried to jam it down the trhoat of the AF by ignoring what the AF asked for. Arrogance.

3. DIMwit - you assume forward bases. The only guaranteed fwd base we have are US Aircraft carriers. The USAF specified operational range that the 767 design cannot meet. How STUPID do you have to be to not get that point? Its better for the USAF and their current doctrine to base tankers out of the US and large bases like Guam, than it is to operate from tricky forward bases like Balad AB in Iraq. So Boing apologist douche-bag here is demanding the USAF change its tanker strategy to for Boeing's aircraft instead of Boeing meeting the USAF standard? STUPID.

4. Ever hear of the F-22 Raptor you f**king moron? Or any number of other defense-aerospace contracts, and in the case of NG Naval contracts. Its PROGRAM MANANEGEMENT skills, not tanker skills. What an IDIOT to make such a sohpomoric error!

Jumpin Jesus on a Pogo Stick, for a PhD, this person is dumb as a bag of hammers.

Boeing proposed a tanker that was too short on range, on an obsolescent airframe, wiht lower lift capacity, and did not meet what the Airforce needs to operate in the manner they need to operate. That's why they lost.

NG-EADS delivered a newer aircraft with higher lift capacity, longer range and a more modern airframe and avionics, with the critica component made her in the US (like the engines which will be made in Ohio, and the boom in Oklahoma). That's why they won.

For a PhD this one is a twit.

Had Boeing gone with a 777 based design, it would have met the same range/load rules, and likely won. Instead Boeing was so arrogant as to TELL the AF what they should do instead of meeting the spec.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-02 09:34|| 2008-06-02 09:34|| Front Page Top

#6 #5, OS. I agree with the points you've made. Just going by the specs elucidated, the AF procurement made a logical selection. Boeing wanted to keep the 767 line going, because it would be very profitable for them, as in the past, to convert an outdated airliner into a tanker. In the backround is the caught red-handed scandal you mentioned, but also, the fact that Boeing as a corporation has under-performed on nearly every AF contract it has been awarded for the last decade. Many times they've underbid LHM or NG on other programs and failed to deliver product on time or anywhere close to program requirements. So this was a backhanded slap in the chops for all their screwups. They know it and are whining like a spoiled child. Note they are also falling way back in promised deliveries on the Dreamliner, so they need the revenue stream supplementation. If everyone is disturbed that this contract may fund jobs in France/Europe instead of US, recall that the lovely Congresscritters opened this door wide 20 years ago to complete deals with EU and others to sell F16 into their markets. This is just the first very large contract to take advantage of these concessions.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-06-02 12:11|| 2008-06-02 12:11|| Front Page Top

#7 Boeing: Arrogance and incompetence are a bad mixture.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-06-02 12:52|| 2008-06-02 12:52|| Front Page Top

#8 What'$ you're price general?

Posted by Flairt Fillmore3847 2008-06-02 12:52|| 2008-06-02 12:52|| Front Page Top

#9 I think we're all signing on the same page here. If Boeing is to learn the lesson, they need to lose this contract, go back to the drawing board, and come up with an airplane that can compete in the next tanker competition.

And there will be a competition. The current contract is for 179 planes, and the Air Force has previously said that they need 500 new tankers. Let Boeing come back with a 777-based (or even 787-based) tanker and see what Airbus does.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-06-02 15:01|| 2008-06-02 15:01|| Front Page Top

#10 "Someone needs to explain why Boeing went with a twenty year old design, the 767, when the newer 777, a plane more comparable to the A330, could have been substituted. I think the Air Force got this one right: they picked the plane better suited to their mission, which is delivering lots of fuel to their jets. Boeing was punished for 1) cheating in the first round (funny this article doesn't mention that) and for 2) being cocky. They should stop crying and start working on the next round of the competition."

How about this: The size / range criteria were such that the 767 was the best fit. The age of the airframe design is not so important, as there are constant upgrades to the basic model. Fly by wire enhancements, revised wing design, etc.
You want to look at stagnant, just this morning at the gas station, another guy was filling up his brand new GM car and the 'key in the ignition' nanny ringer was the same sine the 1980 Pontiac I had. but the point is, it satifies the mission.

now on to the 787 question: i have some level of involvement with that airframe design and the current composite fuselage is not designed to carry those extra point load a refuelling package would entail. The fuselage is not constructed like a traditional metal airplane so it is not a simple matter to just rivet another stringer or longeron or two in place. That is not to say the boys at the Lazy B aren't working on a freighter or tanker version, just not in the next 5-10 years.
I think the AF gooned this award, but they are also carrying some of the previous contract poison forward. while it would be nice, i do not expect Boeing to prevail on the protest.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-06-02 15:21|| 2008-06-02 15:21|| Front Page Top

#11 Agreed, USNRet.

As someone who has some "PROGRAM MANANEGEMENT skills" and experience, it's not at all clear to me that Airbus is the better choice (and be very clear, this was an Airbus win -- Northrup Grumman was in it for the ride.)

There were several undercurrents in this procurement that seem to elude the awareness of a lot of commenters and commentary. The reality is that there is a fair amount of contention within the Pentagon and between services about what missions should drive critical joint airframe procurements. USAF, so far as I can tell from the open source info, signalled Boeing that it wanted to maintain compatibility on a lot of criteria. That was a factor in the Boeing bid as submitted.

BUT ... then we have a) the Navy and b) State Dept. As someone who negotiated with State over export licenses for military tech to an ally, I have first hand experience re: just how much they try and often do exert pressure to 'share the wealth' via tech xfer and outsourcing.

Moreover, the Navy is in deep shite with several ship procurements and is hurting re: fighter programs under way. I would expect that it sought as many allies as possible to keep its favored contractor Northrup Grumman in contracts and to interpret the performance criteria from a ship-based aviation perspective.

Finally, this source selection was not made in a vacuum. There is a concerted push to keep NATO alive and force / seduce Europe to enhance its basic military posture. You can be sure that that consideration played a part in how things were interpreted as well.

Any mis-steps by Boeing were an excuse, not the reason for the selection decision. At least that's how it seems to me, and I've both been a program manager on the contractor side and drafted procurement packages and supported source selection boards on the govt side.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-02 15:40|| 2008-06-02 15:40|| Front Page Top

#12 NG has a much better track record in PM than Boeing, at least recently. Look to the IC and other aerospace contracts. I've worked in Lockmart, Raytheon, and NG run projoects, and NG has them beat. Raytheon does a pretty good job too though (a lot of Hughes legacy there amongst the "Raytheists"). But Boeings lessened capability to manage programs well is reflected in their 787 program.

I don't know what happened to B, maybe it was the M-D infusion that screwed things up, as a lot of Boeing old timers kept telling me that M-D management had "moved up and screwed up" the company.

From what I hear, NG's PMO will be the one doing the maintaining as well, EADS will only be doing the buildouts and delivery. SO that ought to ease some fears. ANd imprtant parts, like engines (In Ohio), specialized avionics and the boom controls and assembly will be 100% US so some of the more critical parts are not at issue.

All in all:

The NG-EADS will deliver modern tankers, on a newer airframe design, with a larger payload and longer operational range, and deliver more of them sooner than Boeing can. and will do so with higher confidence according to the judgement of the USAF.

Their whining is unseemly. Get that 777 tanger on the boards, or if there is a role for a short fnage close-based, try getting one of the newer redesigned 737's. Those things are ubiquitous, essentially they are the DC-3 of Jet Age.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-02 22:13|| 2008-06-02 22:13|| Front Page Top

#13 Sorry OS, while i ususally agree with you POV, I stand by the earlier comment, the airframe is not the high dollar driver, it is the avionics, engines and systems that represent the majority of the $$$.
I do agree with you IRT to the MacD screw up that BMAC and BCAC are still undoing, but if you were to look at the original RFQ, the 67 fit the bill. LOTP's outsource comments were pretty dead on. Don't know if I agree with the NGC survival mode; if the Navy really wanted to do that I don't think they would be all ga-ga over an all Hornet carrier airwing (let's not even think about the fact the USN surrendered the majority of the tanking role to the USAF; that just strengthens the 767 case, more hoses in the air for less bucks.
Sounds to me like you would walk into a Ford Showroom, looking for an Ranger, but drive out with a F350 Crewcab dualie because it is really want the saleman said you needed.

Posted by USN,Ret. (from home) 2008-06-02 23:24|| 2008-06-02 23:24|| Front Page Top

23:45 www
23:36 Abdominal Snowman
23:34 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 Grunter
23:29 George Smiley
23:25 George Smiley
23:24 USN,Ret. (from home)
23:22 George Smiley
23:19 George Smiley
23:17 Gladys
23:12 Slats Slatch7489
23:01 Procopius2k
22:55 www
22:48 JosephMendiola
22:43 Frank G
22:41 Deadeye Spating2038
22:28 OldSpook
22:28 Frank G
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:23 Redneck Jim
22:16 OldSpook
22:15 OldSpook
22:13 OldSpook
22:13 Muggsy Gling