Congressman Tiahrt petition re: KC-X Tanker

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:42 am

CAPFlyer wrote:

WRONG. I cannot be any more forceful, but you need to read the RFP. Nowhere within the RFP is there a single mention of the cargo role for this aircraft as being an evaluated measure. It stresses replacement of the KC-135, a tanker, not the KC-10, a dual-role airlifter/tanker.

The original RFP was ammeded. Boeing senior management decided not to ammend the proposal. Northrop Grumman answered the ammended RFP.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:08 am

No, the RFP was never amended in writing to add cargo as part of the evaluation criteria. This is the basis of the Boeing appeal, and exactly why the GAO stated that neither the USAF nor NG/EADS have grounds for a summary dismissal of the case.

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:18 pm

The Inspector wrote:

JDK, Never mind! I absolutely didnot attempt to pry into your finances, re-read WHAT I said-

I did several times. I'm still not sure why you needed so much space?

The Inspector wrote:

...and I am concerned about uncaring people building airplanes,

Me too. However you are the one teaching them, not me. I was just pointing out there's never been a period when everyone did a 100% job out of the goodness of their heart. The 'good old days' were nasty in a different way, but the past's always rosyed up in memory.

The Inspector wrote:

were worked on, or maintenance was directed by uncaring idiots who placed something else above the value of human life,

Everyone places things above the value of human life at times! How much would YOU pay for someone else's life. Oh, we all make the right noises, but it's not hard to show a value placed on not saving lives.

The Inspector wrote:

that has been the main direct thrust of the past few exchanges, however you continue to sound like you are running for public office...

Don't be so ***** offensive. I'd never run for public office. If you can't cope with a discussion where there's some exploration of the topic, rather than 'I'm right your wrong', that's your loss, but don't confuse complexity with evasion.

The Inspector wrote:

and are always trying to avoid the text, or try as hard as you can to steer away from having to answer a direct inquiry.

I'll happily answer any direct question. However I don't represent the great American unwashed, or either multi-national company in discussion. Ask a question which isn't babble about mirrors and investments, I'll happily give you an honest answer.

But then I've yet to see an answer to my straightforward question.

Give me one, just one, defenc/se / military contract deal that was awarded as per all the rules and following proper procedure...

Should be a shoo in; I can't believe they're all twisty; yet we all know the vast majority of defenc/se deals aren't awarded as per 'the rules' in place.

The Inspector wrote:

So, I consider this subject closed because one of us showed up at a gun fight carrying a pocket knife-

??? We are on the internet. What's with the need for violence in discussion? I'd hoped a mature discussion was possible.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:01 am

Just to add,
I'm sorry if my posts come over somewhat unvarnished, that's the nature of the internet. I'd be the first to by you, 'The Inspector' a drink, should we meet here, or there, for your hard work in teaching good engineering - something I do appreciate.

It's important that everyone has access to the best education, if we can make it so. It remains a human trait that the majority piss away their opportunities and expect life to contain free lunches. The trick (IMHO) is to concentrate on those who are prepared to make a difference.

All the best,

Ztex · **Posted:** Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:29 pm

Please try and refrain from poking each other in the eye...

This thread has gone along rather nicely for a while...

Thanks
Z

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Let's see what I can start here... :wink:

Normally I would put this in the video thread, but since it directly applies to this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R2ss--tJ0A

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3329

Reuters wrote:

Five issues raised by Boeing Co in a protest against a $35 billion aircraft deal should be thrown out because they were improper or should have been raised before final bids were submitted, the U.S. Air Force said in documents obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0131954920080402

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:24 am

Mike, that report is a little late unfortunately as the GAO has already denied the USAF's request for dismissal. -

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 0620080403

Note that yours is dated April 1 and this is dated April 2.

Herkeng · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:08 pm

I am a firm believer that the point in all this has been missed. The Tax payer is going get screwed!

We have over 140 low time DC-10's sitting in the Mojave. The cost of a refitting to KC-10 standards would be BILLIONS less then this dog and pony show between EADS and Boeing. A 10 is a good product. It is supported in the supply system, already has training systems established for both aircrew and maintenance. Gee, we could save the public some money and support the mission. That would be different! Don't say it can't be done, the Dutch just did it with a 10 they got from Mojave.

The USAF/A5 community F'd this up from the get go with Darlene Drunyon. Queen Ass hat herself. If the war fighters think they'll have a new tanker, it won't happen anytime soon. The CSAR community is still waiting for the CSAR-X fight to finish. The only winners are the enemy and the lawyers hashing this out. (Lawyers, Enemy= Same thing). We the taxpayers, and my Brothers and Sisters out in the fight, are the biggest losers.

Hey! Have of you guys and gals looked at what it is going to take to support the EADS product Do you think it will fit into the current hangers we have at any Active, Guard or Reserve tanker base Guess what? it won't. You are going to see another request for more millions to just be able to mod the current hangers to fit this things into. Yes, this is the second screw job: it is the MILCON.

Man, after serving 22 years, from uniforms to procurement, we have had some real winners running the show. I would say that when McPeak started the train rolling on institutionalized stupidity, Air Force Leadership (General Fogleman excepted) has gone all out to screw the USAF into mediocrity. God, I really wish Curtis LeMay would return from the grave and kick some sense into these Ass hats.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:28 pm

As I said in the other thread, we don't need a KC-10 replacement and we don't need more KC-10s. We need a KC-135 replacement. 2 different aircraft with 2 different roles within the warfighting community.

What we got is a replacement for neither.

Mike Bates · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:31 pm

I don't think their going to get more KC-10's when they are planning on replacing them with the KC-Z program.

Mike

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:52 pm

Oh, I just thought of one more thing - show me where all these DC-10s that are supposedly available for the USAF to convert are. Last time I talked to people at FedEx, they can't find enough good DC-10, much less DC-10-30s to convert into freighters because they're either too old, too heavily parted-out, or they're owned by someone not willing to sell.

How is it that if an airline like FedEx who's desperate for them can't get them, then how can the USAF get them without paying far beyond reasonable prices and spending a TON of taxpayer dollars totally rebuilding the aircraft to make them suitable for flight, much less conversion into tankers.

Herkeng · **Posted:** Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:38 am

CAP
Sorry if I ruffled your tail feathers in such a way that you had to reply so nicely.

I stand corrected on the Dc-10 issue. The data I found was out dated. But, I still stand by the fact that in the end it is the American Tax payer and the war fighter who are going to get hosed.
I spoke to the Chief Boom of a tanker unit yesterday. He told me it will be at least 5 years before a whichever tanker possibly arrives. The MILCON for the new tanker, if the EADS bird, will tighten a already tight budget. I was hoping the USAF would have done something to help fill the gap as the E-models are falling apart. That is why I felt a DC-10 conversion would be a decent fill in for the E model. Instead those units will be waiting and waiting for the Government to give the go ahead to either company. The FE's, Gunners and PJ's I know are still awaiting CSAR-X. I don't see this tanker deal getting through the courts very quickly and that in itself is a shame.
The Air Force has had a poor record in the procurement arena and it has showed the world that it still is messed up today. Look at C-130 AMP as an example. AFSOC was the lead command for AMP and pulled chocks awhile back ago. AMP has slowly progressed but has gone way over on its costs. Will it succeed? I hope so, the 130 could really use the mod. Will it happen quickly, nope.
As far as taking sides for Boeing or Eads, I don't give a rats behind. I dealt with Lockheed Martin concerning issues for the 130 and I could gives a rats butt about that bunch.
Between Boeing, EADS, Lockhreed, Northrup Grumman and the management of new requirements by USAF/A5, toss is some congressmen and senators, and we get what we have today, a mess.
Thats my 2 cents

Herkeng

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Quote:

Lawmakers Threaten Tanker Funding
The Wall Street Journal 04/18/2008
Author: August Cole
(Copyright (c) 2008, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Boeing Co.'s most ardent political supporters in Congress threatened to cut off funding for a $40 billion Air Force aerial-refueling-tanker contract following the loss to a Northrop Grumman Corp. team that will use an Airbus jet.

"We're going to try to eliminate the funding," said Washington state Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. "We're going to try to make a fight on the funding of this in the regular bill."

The comments were made at an outdoor rally on Capitol Hill attended by union leaders and lawmakers representing Washington and Kansas, where Boeing has a significant presence. Some attendees held signs reading "U.S. Workers -- Protect U.S. Military" and "Tax $$ for U.S.A. -- Not France!"

The rally was the latest escalation in a political brawl that has stretched the boundaries of what is acceptable in the battle for Pentagon dollars. Boeing filed a formal protest after the Air Force's decision to give the contract to Northrop, kicking off what has become an almost-daily war of words between the bitter rivals.

Both companies have run full-page ads in national and Washington, D.C.-area newspapers. Boeing's ads have gone so far as to directly criticize the Air Force, while Northrop has trotted out a roster of former Air Force generals to defend the decision.

Northrop sends out so-called Tanker Truths email messages several times a day in an operation reminiscent of a boiler-room political campaign. For example, Northrop's message Thursday referred to Boeing's backers as "apologists." The Air Force awarded the contract, which will include 179 planes, to Northrop Grumman Feb. 29. The service said it liked the modified Airbus A330 being offered by Northrop because it could carry more fuel and cargo.

Boeing soon after filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. The Air Force and Northrop tried but failed to get parts of Boeing's protest thrown out. The Air Force Thursday filed its formal response to Boeing's protest, in which it asked the GAO to deny the entire protest. The GAO is expected to make its decision by mid-June.

Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt said the Air Force badly needs new tanker jets, which refuel aircraft in midair and can haul cargo. "We are going to fund a tanker; the question is, which one are we going to fund? I think we're going to fund the" 767 being offered by Boeing, he said.

Northrop's backers made themselves heard Thursday. "If this decision is not overturned by GAO, any attempt to alter this decision through the appropriations process or any other legislative maneuver would be dangerously shortsighted," Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker said on the Senate floor.

The White House has requested $893 million for the program in fiscal-year 2009 Defense Department budget, which covers spending as of Oct. 1, 2008.

A Northrop spokesman and an Air Force spokeswoman declined to comment. A Boeing spokesman said the company is "focused on providing information to the American public" and "looking forward to the GAO" decision.

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

Warbird Information Exchange

Congressman Tiahrt petition re: KC-X Tanker

Who is online