« Court Orders IRS to Comply with 30-Year-Old FOIA Request | Main | Tanker Contract: The Ball's in the Air Force's Court »

Jun 18, 2008



Haven't heard anything about this "deal gone awry" in the news lately... aren't we way past the 90 days already? Boy, this sure seems like it was quietly swept under the rug?!?!?!


WHY NOT ... ? Just give the Tanker to EADS ! Let'em build that tanker with US Taxpayer $$$ in France with a Co. using Illegal subsidized funds from Europe. Why not ? Just "Export" all those High Tech Aerospace jobs to Europe at US expense while our country is in a recession. OUI, OUI !

KSBR machina

ilsm: last week's protest was about the defective, criminally negligent AF procurement process, not the offers. Their relative merits still need to be argued and scored in a fair, transparent environment.

An obvious really quick fix and morale booser: cashier Ms. Sue Payton, posthaste.

This is going to take forever and get tied up by Boeing, which believes it is, well, entitled to the business. Boeing desperately needs competition, sooo.

Let's go for a split buy and do it quickly. It could be the last (only?) triumph of the Bush Defense Department to get this going.


A few issues:

The Airbus was not a replacement for the KC 135.

The Airbus entry is the same size or larger than the DC 10, with off load, and cargo capability similar to the the KC-10. There are only 60 KC-10's and they are never used, for a reason. Too big and unsubstantiated needs. There were only to be 40, but Reagna had so much money to toss around.

There is no need for a hydrin tanker/trash hauler. Never was.

More informative, the claim by the Northrop proposal, seemingly endorsed by the Air Force, that an airplane that is 25% heavier, whose parts will be priced in Euros had a competitive life cycle cost to the B 767. The laws of physics and economic say differently.

Last point how could anyone price fabricating an airplane in Toulouse, leasing special ships and assembling the things in hangars with workforce that do not exist?

Pandering to Northrop or afraid to support Boeing the source selection, run by Mrs Druyun's summer help decided to buy a French trash hauler in lieu of a refueler.

Frank J. Wood

OK, Boeing's protest has been sustained and the ball game has changed slightly. Now its time to get working on proposal revisions and the new submittals are likely to be better than the previously inputs. Both companies now know what the AF has decided it really wants, and have greater insight into how it will be evaluated. The maximum delay in contract award should be contained to one year - 60 days for the AF to understand what troubled GAO and to restructure their evaluation team; 90 days to get a revised RFP to the contractors and 120 days for them to submit proposal revisions. AF selection should be doable in another 90 days. For Northrop Grumman it should be a relatively easy with most tasks slipping out one year and reworking some areas where they came up short. Their proposal may be more like submitting a BAFO.
Boeing would seem to be at a greater disadvantage since industry suspects they will propose a 777 configuration, but that too is a mature airframe in commercial production for which they would have an extensive data base ... not the least of which is their current proposal to militarize their 767 aircraft. Boeing may even have started on it's 777 proposal effort when they elected to protest the Northrop Grumman selection. This will be Boeing's third shot at a formal KC-135 replacement so there shouldn't be any reason to not put a full court press on both contractors and get the new tanker aircraft under contract. A lot of valuable work has been performed by all parties and the military can't let this procurement get tied up in endless appeals nor in continuous alternative studies of split buys, 747 or 767 remanufacture, et al.

The comments to this entry are closed.