Airbus Build in the USA! The Tanker Wars Continue
To add to this story, the UAE has just conluded a deal for 3x KC30s and it appears that Saudi Arabia is in the final stages of a deal for them as well.
It would seem likely that the KC-767 won't be around for the next USAF competition, unless its with second hand airframes.
It would seem likely that the KC-767 won't be around for the next USAF competition, unless its with second hand airframes.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
I don't think it much matters... I've read that unions are filing protests as well as Boeing preparing to file one but I don't believe it will change anything. Under different circumstances it would make sense to me but given the fact that the age of the fleet is some 40 plus years, it's time to begin the process of replacement. I'd hate to see the contract argued out for another 5 years while airmen are forced to remain flying in an artifact.
--Chris
-
CelticWarrior
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 17:16
- Version: FSX
- Location: Llareggub
Northrop Grumman's response to Boeing and Congress criticism of the award of the contract.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mman01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... mman01.htm
"We attack tomorrow under cover of daylight! It's the last thing they'll be expecting ... a daylight charge across the minefield .."
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
Omaha World-Herald
March 10, 2008
Midlands Air Guard Keeps Aging Refuelers Fit For Duty
By Tim Elfrink, World-Herald Bureau
LINCOLN — Imagine an 80-year-old fleet of aircraft: a stately Zeppelin airship, a wood-and-fabric crop duster, maybe the tiny Fokker trimotor that Amelia Earhart used to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 1928.
Tech. Sgt. Brent Bollwitt replaces the cover on the boom of a KC-135 refueling plane that was first put into service in 1959. Some 150 maintenance technicians in Lincoln make sure the Nebraska Air Guard's aging fleet is kept in good repair. The Air Force awarded a $40 billion contract last week for new airplanes, but those may not be ready for delivery to the Midlands until 2040.
Now imagine that the old planes are not in a museum but are flying Air Force missions every day.
That scenario is similar to what the Nebraska and Iowa Air National Guard may see as they prepare to keep flying their half-century-old KC-135 refueling tankers – the backbone of the Air Force's global operations — for 30 more years.
The Air Force took a major step toward replacing its 530 Eisenhower-era tankers last week when it awarded a $40 billion contract to Northrop Grumman and Airbus for new airplanes.
The new planes are scheduled to start arriving in 2013. However, the Nebraska Air Guard and Iowa Air Guard — with eight tankers apiece — don't expect their first new planes in Lincoln or Sioux City until closer to 2040.
And that date could stretch further into the future as some in Congress prepare to fight the contract decision that snubbed U.S. company Boeing in favor of the French-owned Airbus.
No matter what happens, mechanical wizards such as Lt. Col. Kenneth Husted — the Nebraska Air Guard's maintenance squadron commander — will continue battling corrosion, warped metal, worn-down wing joints and frayed wiring to keep the fleet in the air.
Pointing at a row of miniature classic cars on his desk, Husted said, "If you can imagine maintaining a '57 Chrysler in as good shape as your daily driver, and what it would take to do that, that's what we're doing with our tankers."
The KC-135s were designed to keep U.S. nuclear bombers airborne at the height of the Cold War. More than 700 were built between 1954 and 1965, based on the same design as Boeing's 707 passenger jet.
As the tanker's mission evolved after the Cold War, the fleet has shrunk and the planes have been gutted and refitted with new cockpits, brakes, navigation systems and engines.
Today, the Air Force has 530 tankers — 251 of which belong to Air National Guard units.
The Nebraska Air Guard picked up its refueling mission in 1993, trading in its fleet of RF-4 reconnaissance jets. The Iowa Air National Guard got its refueling mission in 2003, basing its eight tankers in Sioux City.
Demand for the KC-135s remains strong. Both states fly hundreds of hours a year, refueling planes over Turkey, the Pacific and Europe. They fly rotations to Afghanistan, using the planes to transport wounded troops to hospitals in Germany.
But as the half-century-old planes rack up hours, challenges grow for the 150 maintenance specialists at Lincoln's Air Guard base, which is next to the Lincoln Municipal Airport.
In a cavernous hangar down a long stairway from Husted's office, a dozen guardsmen swarmed over a KC-135 last week.
Some parts inside its refueling boom needed replacing, and one maintenance specialist bolted the gray metal skin back into place over the long, telescoping tube at the plane's tail. Another shined a flashlight into the side of a wing flap that had been detached from the 130-foot wingspan jet.
"It really is like working on a car. The pieces are bigger, obviously, but it's no different," said Master Sgt. Mike Sabatka. "Our biggest enemy is just the natural aging process, time and corrosion."
Once a year, each plane rotates into the hangar to be slowly disassembled, checked for problems, tinkered with and put back together. Others move into the hangars when unexpected problems arise.
Some of the biggest technological advances since the tankers were built are in computer systems, electronics and engine design. The Guard keeps its KC-135s up-to-date in those areas, Husted said.
The planes relied on human navigators crunching numbers and versed in celestial navigation until 2000, said Husted, a former navigator. But the entire cockpit since was replaced, including new avionics, GPS navigation systems and wiring.
The planes were outfitted with quieter, more efficient engines and recently had their brakes replaced, Husted said.
"With the new avionics in the cockpit and the new engines, it really gave them new life. It's just as capable and flyable as any other aircraft we've got today," he said.
Still, the planes' metal skins and basic skeletons are mostly original — and prone to damaging rust and corrosion, he said.
The outer skin wasn't fitted as tightly as a modern aircraft's is, leaving thousands of tiny cracks where moisture can seep in and slowly corrode metal. The original bulkheads are prone to cracking, and the moving parts in the engine, landing gear and wings wear down with use.
"Any kind of standing water is not good, just like in an automobile," he said. "They're outside in the elements. And when you're flying . . . the plane at high altitude, then you bring it back down into warmer temperatures, that condenses moisture into the planes," Husted said.
The Guard probably can maintain the aircraft far into the future if Congress is willing to pay for that maintenance, said Tom Yanus, an aviation maintenance instructor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.
By contrast, commercial airliners rarely fly longer than 30 or 40 years because the cost of maintaining the older planes begins to skyrocket as parts become harder to find and wear and tear increase, he said.
A Guard tanker "may be an 80-year-old plane based on when it was manufactured, but it's been so thoroughly maintained that you would never walk up to it and think it's that old," Yanus said. "The military has the manpower and money that the commercial world doesn't to keep these things in the air that long."
Husted thinks his team can keep the planes flying for another 30 years, if needed.
"As long as the Air Force and Congress feel it's worth putting the money and time into keeping these going, we can do it," he said.
The Air Force spends about $2.2 billion a year operating and maintaining the KC-135 fleet, the Government Accountability Office estimated.
The Nebraska Air Guard budgeted about $3.8 million last year for parts and outside maintenance services for the tankers; a cost estimate of the Guardsmen's labor to maintain the planes was not available.
The Air Force has posted a list of bases under consideration for new planes starting in 2013. It includes the Lincoln and Sioux City bases, but Air Force officials haven't said which will get planes first. National Guard officials suspect that the active duty service will take precedence.
"The active duty wings would be most logical ones to get initial productions," said Lt. Col. Dennis Hayward, mission support group commander for the Nebraska Air Guard.
When Nebraska and Iowa get the new tankers, it most likely will be bittersweet for the Guard mechanics who have kept the KC-135s airborne for so many years.
"Every airplane has its quirks, and the guys know them for each plane," Husted said. "They've known these planes for more than 10 years, usually. It's like your car: You get to know its quirks and what to expect from it."
March 10, 2008
Midlands Air Guard Keeps Aging Refuelers Fit For Duty
By Tim Elfrink, World-Herald Bureau
LINCOLN — Imagine an 80-year-old fleet of aircraft: a stately Zeppelin airship, a wood-and-fabric crop duster, maybe the tiny Fokker trimotor that Amelia Earhart used to cross the Atlantic Ocean in 1928.
Tech. Sgt. Brent Bollwitt replaces the cover on the boom of a KC-135 refueling plane that was first put into service in 1959. Some 150 maintenance technicians in Lincoln make sure the Nebraska Air Guard's aging fleet is kept in good repair. The Air Force awarded a $40 billion contract last week for new airplanes, but those may not be ready for delivery to the Midlands until 2040.
Now imagine that the old planes are not in a museum but are flying Air Force missions every day.
That scenario is similar to what the Nebraska and Iowa Air National Guard may see as they prepare to keep flying their half-century-old KC-135 refueling tankers – the backbone of the Air Force's global operations — for 30 more years.
The Air Force took a major step toward replacing its 530 Eisenhower-era tankers last week when it awarded a $40 billion contract to Northrop Grumman and Airbus for new airplanes.
The new planes are scheduled to start arriving in 2013. However, the Nebraska Air Guard and Iowa Air Guard — with eight tankers apiece — don't expect their first new planes in Lincoln or Sioux City until closer to 2040.
And that date could stretch further into the future as some in Congress prepare to fight the contract decision that snubbed U.S. company Boeing in favor of the French-owned Airbus.
No matter what happens, mechanical wizards such as Lt. Col. Kenneth Husted — the Nebraska Air Guard's maintenance squadron commander — will continue battling corrosion, warped metal, worn-down wing joints and frayed wiring to keep the fleet in the air.
Pointing at a row of miniature classic cars on his desk, Husted said, "If you can imagine maintaining a '57 Chrysler in as good shape as your daily driver, and what it would take to do that, that's what we're doing with our tankers."
The KC-135s were designed to keep U.S. nuclear bombers airborne at the height of the Cold War. More than 700 were built between 1954 and 1965, based on the same design as Boeing's 707 passenger jet.
As the tanker's mission evolved after the Cold War, the fleet has shrunk and the planes have been gutted and refitted with new cockpits, brakes, navigation systems and engines.
Today, the Air Force has 530 tankers — 251 of which belong to Air National Guard units.
The Nebraska Air Guard picked up its refueling mission in 1993, trading in its fleet of RF-4 reconnaissance jets. The Iowa Air National Guard got its refueling mission in 2003, basing its eight tankers in Sioux City.
Demand for the KC-135s remains strong. Both states fly hundreds of hours a year, refueling planes over Turkey, the Pacific and Europe. They fly rotations to Afghanistan, using the planes to transport wounded troops to hospitals in Germany.
But as the half-century-old planes rack up hours, challenges grow for the 150 maintenance specialists at Lincoln's Air Guard base, which is next to the Lincoln Municipal Airport.
In a cavernous hangar down a long stairway from Husted's office, a dozen guardsmen swarmed over a KC-135 last week.
Some parts inside its refueling boom needed replacing, and one maintenance specialist bolted the gray metal skin back into place over the long, telescoping tube at the plane's tail. Another shined a flashlight into the side of a wing flap that had been detached from the 130-foot wingspan jet.
"It really is like working on a car. The pieces are bigger, obviously, but it's no different," said Master Sgt. Mike Sabatka. "Our biggest enemy is just the natural aging process, time and corrosion."
Once a year, each plane rotates into the hangar to be slowly disassembled, checked for problems, tinkered with and put back together. Others move into the hangars when unexpected problems arise.
Some of the biggest technological advances since the tankers were built are in computer systems, electronics and engine design. The Guard keeps its KC-135s up-to-date in those areas, Husted said.
The planes relied on human navigators crunching numbers and versed in celestial navigation until 2000, said Husted, a former navigator. But the entire cockpit since was replaced, including new avionics, GPS navigation systems and wiring.
The planes were outfitted with quieter, more efficient engines and recently had their brakes replaced, Husted said.
"With the new avionics in the cockpit and the new engines, it really gave them new life. It's just as capable and flyable as any other aircraft we've got today," he said.
Still, the planes' metal skins and basic skeletons are mostly original — and prone to damaging rust and corrosion, he said.
The outer skin wasn't fitted as tightly as a modern aircraft's is, leaving thousands of tiny cracks where moisture can seep in and slowly corrode metal. The original bulkheads are prone to cracking, and the moving parts in the engine, landing gear and wings wear down with use.
"Any kind of standing water is not good, just like in an automobile," he said. "They're outside in the elements. And when you're flying . . . the plane at high altitude, then you bring it back down into warmer temperatures, that condenses moisture into the planes," Husted said.
The Guard probably can maintain the aircraft far into the future if Congress is willing to pay for that maintenance, said Tom Yanus, an aviation maintenance instructor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.
By contrast, commercial airliners rarely fly longer than 30 or 40 years because the cost of maintaining the older planes begins to skyrocket as parts become harder to find and wear and tear increase, he said.
A Guard tanker "may be an 80-year-old plane based on when it was manufactured, but it's been so thoroughly maintained that you would never walk up to it and think it's that old," Yanus said. "The military has the manpower and money that the commercial world doesn't to keep these things in the air that long."
Husted thinks his team can keep the planes flying for another 30 years, if needed.
"As long as the Air Force and Congress feel it's worth putting the money and time into keeping these going, we can do it," he said.
The Air Force spends about $2.2 billion a year operating and maintaining the KC-135 fleet, the Government Accountability Office estimated.
The Nebraska Air Guard budgeted about $3.8 million last year for parts and outside maintenance services for the tankers; a cost estimate of the Guardsmen's labor to maintain the planes was not available.
The Air Force has posted a list of bases under consideration for new planes starting in 2013. It includes the Lincoln and Sioux City bases, but Air Force officials haven't said which will get planes first. National Guard officials suspect that the active duty service will take precedence.
"The active duty wings would be most logical ones to get initial productions," said Lt. Col. Dennis Hayward, mission support group commander for the Nebraska Air Guard.
When Nebraska and Iowa get the new tankers, it most likely will be bittersweet for the Guard mechanics who have kept the KC-135s airborne for so many years.
"Every airplane has its quirks, and the guys know them for each plane," Husted said. "They've known these planes for more than 10 years, usually. It's like your car: You get to know its quirks and what to expect from it."
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
CelticWarrior
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 17:16
- Version: FSX
- Location: Llareggub
Decision Time Nears for Boeing to Protest
ST. LOUIS, March 10, 2008 -- As the deadline nears for a decision on whether to protest a U.S. Air Force contract award for the next refueling tanker aircraft, officials at Boeing [NYSE: BA] spent the weekend evaluating with growing concern the information provided by the Air Force during a Friday debriefing.
"As we have gone through this process it has become clearer that this competition was much closer than has been reported, and that raises the stakes if the process was flawed and unfair in any way," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager for tanker programs. "We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data."
As Boeing enters the final phase of its evaluation, the company is taking exception to reports that the Air Force had not received adequate commercial pricing data from the company. "It was clear from the Request for Proposals that the Air Force was seeking a commercial derivative tanker. However, by treating the Boeing offering as a military aircraft, the process by which the commercial cost/price data provided by Boeing Commercial Airplanes was evaluated has raised significant concerns," McGraw said. "We provided unprecedented insight into Boeing commercial cost/price data that had been developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft. We believe this data was treated differently than our competitor's information.
"It is also important to note that the task of assembling and presenting this commercial data to the Air Force demonstrates the value of cooperation on this program within one company," McGraw added. "This is in sharp contrast to the higher risk involved in two companies from different countries and business cultures who have never worked together on a program of this size before."
Boeing is also responding to assertions that the company somehow misread Air Force requirements for the new tanker. "Our proposal was based on the stated criteria in the Air Force's Request for Proposal, with a specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost," McGraw said. "We stand by our offering and believe that it did, and continues to, best meet the requirements.
"We take a protest very seriously," McGraw said. "For decades, Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions. We are following a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure that we are comfortable that the evaluation was fair, and that ultimately it resulted in the tanker that is best suited to meet the needs of the warfighter."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... eing01.htm
"As we have gone through this process it has become clearer that this competition was much closer than has been reported, and that raises the stakes if the process was flawed and unfair in any way," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager for tanker programs. "We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data."
As Boeing enters the final phase of its evaluation, the company is taking exception to reports that the Air Force had not received adequate commercial pricing data from the company. "It was clear from the Request for Proposals that the Air Force was seeking a commercial derivative tanker. However, by treating the Boeing offering as a military aircraft, the process by which the commercial cost/price data provided by Boeing Commercial Airplanes was evaluated has raised significant concerns," McGraw said. "We provided unprecedented insight into Boeing commercial cost/price data that had been developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft. We believe this data was treated differently than our competitor's information.
"It is also important to note that the task of assembling and presenting this commercial data to the Air Force demonstrates the value of cooperation on this program within one company," McGraw added. "This is in sharp contrast to the higher risk involved in two companies from different countries and business cultures who have never worked together on a program of this size before."
Boeing is also responding to assertions that the company somehow misread Air Force requirements for the new tanker. "Our proposal was based on the stated criteria in the Air Force's Request for Proposal, with a specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost," McGraw said. "We stand by our offering and believe that it did, and continues to, best meet the requirements.
"We take a protest very seriously," McGraw said. "For decades, Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions. We are following a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure that we are comfortable that the evaluation was fair, and that ultimately it resulted in the tanker that is best suited to meet the needs of the warfighter."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... eing01.htm
"We attack tomorrow under cover of daylight! It's the last thing they'll be expecting ... a daylight charge across the minefield .."
Boeing will protest a $35B Air Force refueling tanker award
Boeing will protest a $35B Air Force refueling tanker award given to EADS/Northrop team
By JOELLE TESSLER | AP Business Writer
2:30 AM CDT, March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - The fate of a $35 billion Air Force contract is out of the hands of the military.
Boeing Co. said Monday it will formally protest the refueling tanker contract awarded to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.
While that official protest, to be filed Tuesday, puts the contract under review of the Government Accountability Office, it doesn't take Air Force officials out from under intense pressure.
By JOELLE TESSLER | AP Business Writer
2:30 AM CDT, March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - The fate of a $35 billion Air Force contract is out of the hands of the military.
Boeing Co. said Monday it will formally protest the refueling tanker contract awarded to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.
While that official protest, to be filed Tuesday, puts the contract under review of the Government Accountability Office, it doesn't take Air Force officials out from under intense pressure.
-
Jumpshot724
- Major
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 16 Feb 2008, 20:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: New York, USA
I watched the defense apportions (sp?) Sub-Committee meeting on CSPAN where the AF had to defend their choice. One of the panel members made some very good points:
1) The RFP stated that the AF wanted a KC-135 replacement, which is why Boeing chose the 767 over the 777. However Northrop produced a KC-10 replacement.
2) The AF wanted a KC-135 replacement sized aircraft so they could fit as many new tankers on a current KC-135 flightline, not KC-10 which is larger and thus means less aircraft
3) EADS is part of the presidential airlift helicopter team, which is now very late and 67% overbudget
4) Airbus's A330, A400, and A380 aircraft were all late in delivery (the most recent projects too)
5) The presidential airlift helicopter stated that they would build in America, however after contract award they turned around and said we'll keep the production in Europe since the Euro is stronger than the US dollar and it's still cheaper to build over there.
6) Northrop/EADS/Airbus said the first 3-5 aircraft will be built in Europe and then production will shift to America. Who says they won't pull the same idea as the helicopter team and just keep it over in Europe? "Well, we were onna move it but we're all set up over here so we'll just keep it over here".
Also on a side note, before this hoopla BOTH Northrop and Boeing AGREED on PAPER that the competition was a fair one, so it'll be interesting to see where this whole project goes....
Also, these delays are just keeping KC-135's fluing. After reading an article in "AirForce" magazine, the ANG KC-135 units won't expect the new tanker until about 2040. To me, that's just unacceptable. Some of those KC-135 aircraft will be 91 years old by then, some even older.
1) The RFP stated that the AF wanted a KC-135 replacement, which is why Boeing chose the 767 over the 777. However Northrop produced a KC-10 replacement.
2) The AF wanted a KC-135 replacement sized aircraft so they could fit as many new tankers on a current KC-135 flightline, not KC-10 which is larger and thus means less aircraft
3) EADS is part of the presidential airlift helicopter team, which is now very late and 67% overbudget
4) Airbus's A330, A400, and A380 aircraft were all late in delivery (the most recent projects too)
5) The presidential airlift helicopter stated that they would build in America, however after contract award they turned around and said we'll keep the production in Europe since the Euro is stronger than the US dollar and it's still cheaper to build over there.
6) Northrop/EADS/Airbus said the first 3-5 aircraft will be built in Europe and then production will shift to America. Who says they won't pull the same idea as the helicopter team and just keep it over in Europe? "Well, we were onna move it but we're all set up over here so we'll just keep it over here".
Also on a side note, before this hoopla BOTH Northrop and Boeing AGREED on PAPER that the competition was a fair one, so it'll be interesting to see where this whole project goes....
Also, these delays are just keeping KC-135's fluing. After reading an article in "AirForce" magazine, the ANG KC-135 units won't expect the new tanker until about 2040. To me, that's just unacceptable. Some of those KC-135 aircraft will be 91 years old by then, some even older.
-Joe W.
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
While they will be old by that point, not a single flying KC-135 will be 91 years old in 2040. The oldest it could be is 85 years and that's assuming it was a model from '55. I believe most, if not all, models from from '55 and '56 are either stored or preserved. So going from '57, in 2040 the oldest KC-135 could be 83. However, as the KC-45A rolls out, AD units will move their KC-135R models to ANG units so in 2040 I wouldn't expect to see much of anything earlier than '62 or '63.Jumpshot724 wrote:...Also, these delays are just keeping KC-135's fluing. After reading an article in "AirForce" magazine, the ANG KC-135 units won't expect the new tanker until about 2040. To me, that's just unacceptable. Some of those KC-135 aircraft will be 91 years old by then, some even older.
--Chris
-
Jumpshot724
- Major
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 16 Feb 2008, 20:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: New York, USA
Sorry my math was off lol, according to the article the maintenance crews were working on an aircraft who's first flight was in 1959 during his visit. Still 83 or even 62-63 is ridiculously old for a warplane, or any plane for that matter.
-Joe W.
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
-
CelticWarrior
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 17:16
- Version: FSX
- Location: Llareggub
-
Jumpshot724
- Major
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 16 Feb 2008, 20:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: New York, USA
As it turns out the GAO has upheld the Boeing Tanker Protest.
The Government Accountability Office said Wednesday that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”
I have to say I am surprised... I thought for sure GAO would just roll over on it. Either way, hopefully it gets resolved soon. As much as I love the KC-135 it's time they get some well deserved rest.
The Government Accountability Office said Wednesday that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”
I have to say I am surprised... I thought for sure GAO would just roll over on it. Either way, hopefully it gets resolved soon. As much as I love the KC-135 it's time they get some well deserved rest.
--Chris
So does this mean it's back to square one??
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
No Change Here: Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said yesterday (July 17) that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not altered its view about the soundness of the Air Force's KC-X tanker decision since the contract award was made to Northrop Grumman-EADS in February. "There has been absolutely no change in this building's position on that contract," he said while speaking to reporters in the Pentagon. Much has happened since then, including Boeing's protest of the decision with the Government Accountability Office and the sudden resignation of USAF's leadership earlier this month. Still, Morrell said, "We believe that the acquisition and the contracting process that eventually produced Northrop Grumman and EADS as the winner of this deal was a fair and transparent one. It was very deliberate." He also reiterated the imperative of getting the new tankers on the ramp as soon as possible to replace the current Eisenhower-era KC-135s. "These planes desperately need to be replaced," he said, adding that "any further delay would be a real problem." Morrell's comments came on the cusp of the GAO's ruling in the tanker protest. By law, the GAO must rule by close of business tomorrow, which is the final day of the 100 days it is granted to review a legal complaint. There have also been rumors swirling that its decision could come by COB today. Northrop Grumman issued a statement yesterday calling for no further delays in the program should the GAO rule against Boeing. "If we're given the 'all clear,' it is critical that we get to work," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman VP of corporate and international communications. Meanwhile Boeing is holding out hope that a GAO ruling even partially in its favor could ultimately lead to a new competition, Reuters news wire service reported June 16 (via Forbes). "If the protest is upheld, if even just some of our arguments are upheld, that could ultimately lead to a recompetition," Mark McGraw, Boeing's tanker program manager, told the wire service.
From AF Daily Report 18 Jun 08
From AF Daily Report 18 Jun 08
GZR_SACTARGETS