I'm confused about this Air Force tanker...

[TreasonousBastard]

Is the accepted position around here that it should be Boeing's because it would create a net 20,000 jobs (according to Boeing, that is)?

It makes no difference that Boeing did not beat Airbus on even one of the five basic criteria and the Air Force considered their plane to be POS?

Are many of the people insisting we should buy American the same ones who insist we should all buy Japanese cars because the US can't make anything worthwhile any more?

Is Boeing part of that "corporatist corruption" that should be condemned for destroying America or not?

Has anybody noticed just how much we're spending on this sort of thing? To paraphrase from the past-- A trillion bucks for defense, not one penny for school.

[FalconsRule]

1. Well since Boeing

has 50 years experience with USAF tankers and Airbus 0, I'd like to see where the USAF said Boeing's tanker was a POS?

[Winterblues]

11. Well if experience is all it's cracked up to be I guess you won't be voting for Obama.

:shrug: Experience only counts if it is put to good use.

[FalconsRule]

19. And he has none compared to Hillary

SHE gets my vote

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Because the plane they designed was not as...

good as the one Airbus designed and came in second in all the tests.

Boeing's past experience is one thing, but present management seems more interested in bribing Pentagon buyers and pressuring Congress than actually building a decent product. With the disappearance of Lockheed and M-D, Airbus was the only thing keeping Boeing honest in the commercial aviation business, and now seems to be keeping them honest in the military business.

[FalconsRule]

20. Actually

it appears the AF changed the rules...so says Norm Dicks and Patty Murray.

[MaryCeleste]

25. Not really

The original KPPs stayed, but they added more, mostly in the program management area

[FalconsRule]

26. That would be called "changing the rules"

PLUS they added requirements other than strictly those required for a tanker (i.e. cargo and medivac)

[MaryCeleste]

30. Boeing lost on the original ones as well

Depending how you view it even the so called added requirements were really clarification of prior ones

[FalconsRule]

32. How do you know they lost on them?

They have not been debriefed yet.

[MaryCeleste]

37. Debriefing should have been this week.

I am going on the what is in the trades from both sides. 3rd party analysis is pretty much an NGC sweep.

Boeing advocates are claiming the rules were changed or not interpreted the way they thought they should be.

Bear in mind the KPPs were set early on and then the horde of GS-12/13/14s went to work. They wrote the spec and later evaluated the proposals. It pretty hard to mess with that system once its turned on without being really obvious and more importantly caught.

[FalconsRule]

47. The debriefings

are scheduled for next week.

[MaryCeleste]

49. Roger that, early I read this week

[Truth2Tell]

28. I'm afraid Dicks and Murray have zero credibility

on this issue. They are so in the tank for Boeing that they might as well be on the Board of Directors.

[FalconsRule]

33. And the guys for NG do have credibility?

[Truth2Tell]

35. No. I'd only listen to very very

independent analysts on this one. A lot of voices in this debate are paid for.

[FalconsRule]

36. And in that case

I'd go with what's best for the American public

[MaryCeleste]

38. Its not clear that would have been the Boeing product. Both claimed about 60% domestic

[FalconsRule]

41. Boeing claimed 85%

And Murray has shown proof where EADS has lied in the past about this very topic.

[MaryCeleste]

44. IIRC, the 767 today is no where near that number

DCAA would have the final say on the percentage regardless.

[FalconsRule]

46. They don't, and you KNOW it , UNLESS it was in the

RFP and I'm betting it was not.

[MaryCeleste]

50. I was referring to the commercial version, where offsets are a big deal

[Truth2Tell]

39. No tankers at all? nt

[MaryCeleste]

22. The didn't say it was a POS, they said the Northrop-Grumman offering was better

NGC has been building military airplanes for as long as Boeing

[MercutioATC]

2. Agreed. If they were treated equally, the better deal should get the contract.

Murtha mentioned something about making sure that both parties were treated equally. If they weren't, the decision should be revisited. If they were, it should stand.

...and remember that Boeing is not lily-white here. Didn't they get fined last year for overcharging the government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?

[Parche]

3. Tanker

They were talking about size issue....:rofl:


767 is a little smaller then A-330

But they could have built the 767-300
or even a 777 tanker that would have been enough


:hi:


Keep the jobs in the US, I dont like Airbus anyway, and even tho they say they would
build the plant in Alabama.

[Turbineguy]

6. Airbus planes have nicer seats.

We used to have a french car. We sat in total comfort waiting for the tow truck.

[Mountainman]

4. These decisions are never that black and white.

The B-1 was kept alive by Reagan to give jobs to Pomdale. Even after Carter tried to shut it down in favor of ICBMs a skeleton force of engineers was kept on knowing that once Carter was gone it could be started up again.

The B-36 was built as apposed to Northrup's flying wing because of back room deals in Congress. Eventually the B-2 was built using similar technology.

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. There were a lot of problems with the YB-49, though

Entire crews were killed in two test crashes (resulting in the memorial names Edwards AFB and Forbes AFB for two of the victims of one crash). But, mostly, the "Flying Wing" wasn't a good bombing platform:

In November 1948, another step was taken toward the ultimate dissolution of the B-49 project. During informal discussions about recent bombing tests of the YB-49, Major Robert L. Cardenas, Air Force test pilot on the project, was quoted in official Air Force records as saying that the airplane was "extremely unstable and very difficult to fly on a bombing mission ... because of the continual yawing and the pitching which was evident upon application of the rudders, undoubtedly due to the control arrangements or elevons peculiar to the YB-49." Until aerodynamic deficiencies could be corrected, it was the opinion of Colonel Albert Boyd, Chief, Flight Test Division at Murk, and Major Cardenas, that the YB-49 was unsuitable for both bomber and reconnaissance work"

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/Northrop%20bombers.htm

The official records may have been doctored, though. In an interview for a documentary on the "Flying Wing" for the Discovery Channel, Cardenas said, "It wasn't unstable, but it wasn't stable."

From the same link:

During April and June 1949, Major Russ Schleeh, who had replaced Major Cardenas on the Flying Wing project, flew the YB-49 11 times, evaluating the aircraft as a bombing platform both with and without the autopilot. According to Major Schleeh, the bombing results were very poor. In 1982, he recalled some of the problems.

"It was noted in the movies taken from a chase airplane that the 100-pound bombs dropped from the bomb bay almost without exception showed a pitching and oscillating movement, which at that time was attributed to the turbulence in the bomb bay. This no doubt caused some of the bombing inaccuracies we were experiencing. I cannot agree with the statement that the aircraft was declared suitable for its mission, as I would never have made such a statement for a number of reasons."

Casting further intrigue on the program, on a return flight from Andrews AFB to the test base at Muroc Dry Lake Bed in southern California in February, 1949, six of the eight engines lost all their oil. Cardenas said in the documentary that the ground crew at Andrews had signed off on all eight engines being filled with oil. So... sabotage?

[Mountainman]

14. Also, by the time the B-36 and YB-49 were built they were obsolete.

Many times contracts are let because of jobs and boost to economics. War toys are always good money makers, we just need to create the need for them. Fear, fear, fear, terror, terror, terror!

[genie_weenie]

5. Well, duh War=Prosperity!

Look at this http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/">money being spent it must be creating new jobs for good ole honest americans.

just as my glorious leader told me the http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/18/bush-iraq-economy/">War in Iraq is good because of all the work it makes!

[BearSquirrel2]

7. They should use the best equipment ...

I think our fighting men and women should be equipped with the best gear. Countries all over the world buy American military hardware. I don't think we should get our feathers ruffled if we buy some equipment from our allies in Europe. These countries have similar standards of living as us and there is a permanent bond there.

I am far more concerned about all the circuit boards being manufactured in the far east that go INTO advanced equipment. I am far more concerned about the political persuasion of that region and the general lack of Democracy there. I am EXTREMELY concerned that we are putting a lot of manufacturing eggs in the Chinese basket and that the Chinese may have us by the balls soon.

[winter999]

9. By Law, the military cannot take jobs or economy into consideration.

They can only make their choice based on specs and cost. What congress can do is simply not fund the project and the Air Force is back to square one.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Not entirely true-- there is that...

"Buy America Act," or some such thing, that requires the gummint buy US stuff. This was a postwar act, so our allies, like France, were exempted.

But, again, why would Congress insist we buy inferior goods?

(Yeah, I know-- stupid question.)

[krispos42]

18. This is a long-term project

These planes will be in service for 50 years or more. Is being dependent on the Europeans for parts and maintenence a national security threat?

[dysfunctional press]

10. when did the air force say that boeing's plane was a POS?

:shrug:

i certainly hadn't heard that. and i'm pretty sure that you didn't either.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I heard that it lost on the 5 basic criteria, which...

makes it POS.

[dysfunctional press]

17. that's some mighty fancy figurin' you got there...

:eyes:

so- if a ferrari and a lamborghini have a race, and the ferrari wins, -it's because the lamborghini is a POS?

riiiiiight...

[FalconsRule]

21. LMAO Good one

[MaryCeleste]

24. It was more a case of good vs better

Also the way the programs were structured, the Boeing approach was higher risk and fewer airplanes in the begining

[walldude]

12. Um.. isn't that why Murtha is trying to get the contract to Northrup?

"Is Boeing part of that "corporatist corruption" that should be condemned for destroying America or not?" Yes it is, but if the planes are going to be built anyway we might as well do it here. People need jobs.

[MaryCeleste]

23. Not by me...and I am familiar with DoD Acquistion

First of all it was not Airbus that beat Boeing, but Northrop Grumman. There is much more to the tanker, its capabilities, and life cycle cost than just the airframe.

Lots of Boeing parts are not built in the US, they are built overseas. Both bids were about 60% US domestic, both used US engines (major cost driver).

Boeing got beaten in most of the key areas. 3rd party analysis is pretty clear on that. However, it was not a POS

[FalconsRule]

27. No Airbus beat Boing

NG MAY be the prime but Airbus is the REAL contractor here.

[MaryCeleste]

31. Not even close

There is more to the "system" than just the airframe, and Boeing lost on that as well.

[FalconsRule]

34. Yes, close, the bottom line was

the airframe I work in SAF/AQ, you?

[Truth2Tell]

29. I really couldn't care less.

How 'bout we don't buy any more tankers at all? That's my proposed solution.

Maybe we should argue over weather Blackwater or Halliburton should get more Iran reconstruction money after we bomb and occupy.

It's just always so hard to decide which blood-sucking globalist corporate killing machine to cheer-lead for.

[PuppyBismark]

40. Bush Had to approval wavier of 50% American Built Law

There is a law that states that major DOD contract buys have to have a 50% American components. In order to award this contract to Air Bus, a wavier has has to be granted by the Administrations. In a stroke of a pen, Bush has further weakened the American dollar and exported more jobs over seas. Why are our candidates ignoring this issue?

Congress needs to stop this now! It can be stopped if Congress refuses to fund the contract. Have we lost our mind??????

:nuke:

[FalconsRule]

42. That's BS BTW

[MaryCeleste]

43. Both companies claimed higher than than

[FalconsRule]

45. True, they did

But you must know that EADS is lying. Their airframes(avionics, etc) will be assembled in Europe. The US workers will get the grunt work. Oh, and the probes...

[MaryCeleste]

48. I would have thought it would have followed the presidential helo model

with platform independent avionics.

Per the trade press, airframe subcomponents would be shipped to the plant where they would be assembled. Then the shells would be moved to an adjacent facility for outfitting. That is also about what Boeing would do.

I am not so much a NGC fan or Boeing hater, but do feel that there is some integrity to the acquisition system and after what Druyan put us all through tend to believe that especially for this procurement, it was followed well.

[spanone]

51. why should france build our war machines?

[FalconsRule]

52. Money....they WANT to