USAF Tanker Competition Canceled

From Newsday.com

Quote:

---

Feds put off Northrop Grumman, Boeing tanker decision

By James Bernstein | [email protected]
11:05 AM EDT, September 10, 2008

Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co., the two aerospace giants vying for the right to build new aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force under a $35 billion contract, will have to wait until a new administration is in place in Washington, D.C. for a resolution of the competition, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates said it would be unfair for the current Bush administration, which has only a few months left in office, to make a decision on which one of the two companies should build what is now called the KC-X tanker. The Pentagon wants to build 179 new aerial refueling planes to replace an aging fleet.

The competition, initially won by Northrop Grumman, has been mired in controversy. After Northrop Grumman won it earlier this year, Boeing protested, and the protest was upheld by the Government Accountability Office. In July, Gates said the contract would be re-bid and that the Pentagon, not the Air Force, would take charge of the competition. The Air Force came under severe criticism by the GAO for its handling of the competition.

But in a statement issued by the Pentagon Wednesday, Gates said the Defense Department is "terminating" the competition and handing the matter over to the next administration.

---

Gates and his crew will be out of a job in a few months anyway, might as well let someone else clean up the mess.

We don't need any new tankers. The 135 will be good for another 80 years!

I thought Airbus had won it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetinder

I thought Airbus had won it.

---

No, no, no, it wasn't Airbus! It was Northrop/Grumman, with their "partner" EADS. Can't say the A-word, people might find out it's a foreign aircraft.

What happened was Northrop/Grumman/EADS/etc. was selected earlier this year. Boeing protested the award, and the GAO (Government Accountability Office) recently upheld several points of their protest, finding the Air Force didn't conduct the selection properly. The Department of Defense (through the Secretary of Defense) took over the selection process from the Air Force, and was planning to issue a revised ("clarified"?) RFP (Request For Proposal) within the next week or two. Instead, the SecDef today announced that rather than try to rush a selection in the little time remaining for the Bush administration, the competition was canceled, and the new DoD leadership would have to issue a new RFP and start the process over, under whichever new administration is in office.

Well I'm sure glad our leaders are thinking more of the political ramifications of such a decision than looking at the facts and picking an airframe that will actually benefit the Air Force..... [/sarcasm]

I understand there will be some sort of political "fallout" - from whichever side loses - if a decision is made by the outgoing Bush administration or if it gets its hands dirty in the selection process before leaving office. But, delaying "re-opening" the process, just delays actually receiving physical aircraft more than "just a few months"...

The fact is the people at the top know what the correct airframe to fill the requirement is (whether it's Boeing or Ai... I mean Northrop Grumman)... Unfortunately, the bidding process was not conducted correctly the first time, and now we are stuck in this situation. There needs to be a completely independent committee, who sits down, looks at all the Air Force's requirements, submits those to both companies, and then picks the aircraft that will not only meet those requirements but also delivers the best bang for the buck. It needs to be openly conducted in an expeditious manner and once a decision is made, it needs to be stuck to....


Also, word on the street is that McCain is anti-Boeing.... (should he be elected the next President).

Don't mention the A word in most Concorde circles either LOL.

Why can't they use old converted 747 as tankers as surely a fleet of them would carry more fuel than any other plane.

Well this is my first post so hi to all :)

Having watched the 3 way fight between the YF 15,16 and 17, Competition is not always a bad thing i'm sure you'll agree, but to bash EADS or any other Manufacturer of quality aircraft is very sad.
Don't hear much Harrier or T45 Goshawk Bashing going on, after all what would the USMC be flying instead oh yeah A1's and 7's!
As for this tanker issue VC10 and Tristar are performing outstandingly for the RAF and are not polluting the air over the UK as much as the ageing KC/RC fleet that supports ongoing ops, and as for using ageing 747's, far too much turbulence the 'sweet spot' would not be attainable for anything other than other widebodies and perhaps the Bone, and I for one would not be happy with bigger flying bombs over the Uk.

Personally I would take a cross section of many tanker drivers and operators and maintenance engineers, let them fly all entrants and pick the best one, dont let accountants and desk jockey's decide without having any first hand knowledge and experience of the job at hand. The US and the UK have modified many types to perform this role as extras so forget the sovreignty issue and pick the best!

Many US operators have used A***** aircraft and indeed are now so what is the problem?

And as for Concorde the US did not want it anywhere near, too noisy(which smothered sales and indeed an order from PanAm) what about the U2's/TR1's that used to be at RAF/USAFE Alconbury or the SR71's of Det 4 at Mildenhall did we moan about the noise or pollution?

Political posturing, Brown envelopes and coverups are a global disease IMMUNISE now!

Bless all flying in and out of danger and may your Gods go with you :)

I cant say that im an "expert" regarding this issue, but I do remember hearing that the Air Force itself had to change their "doctrine"(?) when it came to this tanker competition because the A330 frame is simply too large to replace the 135's. I remember hearing that they had to change the spacing rules for when the planes were parked, for instance.

The way I see it, it looks like the military or the politicians - or both - were upset with Boeing for the whole corruption scandal from a few years ago and decided to not just "give" this contract to boeing and the 767. The 767 is, from what I saw in the news from former Air Force people, the only choice when looking at the Air Forces doctrine.

For the Air Force to reverse their decision is a HUGE deal, and kind of shows that after they thought about it the people in charge changed their minds because maybe they weren't thinking very rational when they made their decision.

Of course, I have nooooo problem seeing "foreign" aircraft in our (U.S.A.) military, as mentioned above, the Harrier for example was a great aircraft to acquire. But in this case, I thought to myself " Come on..Air Forces in Europe and other parts of the world are using the 767 as their tanker. It is even the new Awacs of choice in Japan (I think). How can we (the US) not choose it as our tanker?". But that is just a Patriotic remark I guess.

Dont get me wrong now! As a fellow "Spotter", I LOVE seeing A340's, 330's and especially A320's flying. They are awesome airplanes. But I have to admit I'd rather see the 767 as the US's Tanker.

:D