backtop

Print 46 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Mar 16 at 5:40 PM
White House issues guidance to delay procurement of new tankers

It's been more than six months since DailyTech last talked about the explosive competition between Northrop Grumman/EADS and Boeing over the Air Force's next generation tanker platform. In late August, Boeing demanded an extra six month to submit a suitable aircraft for the Air Force or it would no-bid the program.

Well, that six month period has come and gone, and it appears that if President Obama has his way, there may be another five-year delay tacked onto the whole tanker program. The Pentagon has received notification from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OBM) that it should delay its procurement of new tanker aircraft according to CQ Politics.

The move is no doubt an effort to curb defense spending, at least in the near term. Bloomberg reports that by delaying the procurement of tankers five years, $13.3 billion USD would be cut from the budget.

However, the Air Force is in desperate need of an all-new platform to replace the aging KC-135 Stratotanker. "The KC-135 tanker averages over 47 years old, and the B-52 bomber is almost as old," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Dunn who serves as the president of the Air Force Association.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers in states which have a vested interest in the production of new tanker aircraft are up in arms about the proposed delay. "For a group who has been in the OMB for just a matter of weeks to come in and suggest the cancellation of the No. 1 Air Force priority for procurement is stunning, and I don’t think Congress will accept that," noted Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. If Northrop Grumman/EADS were to win the contract, his state would benefit greatly as final assembly of the aircraft would take place there.

"The longer we wait to begin building tankers, the more we jeopardize our many global operations, from war-fighting to relief efforts, which depend on this vital platform," added Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas -- his state would benefit from a Boeing victory in the tanker bid.

Another potential causality as a result of the OBM's guidance is the next generation long-range bomber. The new bomber wasn't expected to take flight until 2018 at the earliest, but the possible cancellation of the project would leave fleet stalwarts like the B-52, B-2, and B-1B flying for quite some time.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Obama yo Momma
By talikarni on 3/12/2009 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
This goes to prove that Obama is not as concerned about the economy as he originally stated he was. With as many jobs that this could create not only stateside but with other manufacturers overseas, and create them within a matter of weeks and not years, the smart thing to do would be to shut out the whining bastards at Boeing and let Northrup Grumman/EADS do what they do best, giving the people and military a better and more reliable plane for same/less money as Boeing.




RE: Obama yo Momma
By markitect on 3/12/2009 12:43:52 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, the best way to boost the economy is creating jobs, and the best way for the government to do that is by spending lots of money. It's how we got out of the great depression. Although I think weeks might be overly optimistic.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By icrf on 3/12/2009 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
While I don't agree with that, Obama certainly does. He wants to spend tons of money under the guise of creating jobs and saving the economy, but he's opposed to spending it here because of "saving money" or something. Gotta love politics.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By rs1 on 3/12/2009 1:25:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Gotta love politics.


No, you really don't.

The fact that the anandtech comment threads have become more about politics than about technology is quite disappointing, actually. Everyone who hates Obama and feels the need to make their feelings known at every available opportunity needs to gtfo and head over to rightpundits.com. And everyone who loves Obama and feels the need to make their feelings known needs to gtfo and head over to demconwatchblog.com.

That way, all the rest of us can finally get back to having meaningful discussions about technology on our technology-themed website. The neo-cons and the Obama-bots can both take their politics, and shove it.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By icrf on 3/12/2009 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

This article had everything to do with politics and next to nothing to do with technology. It's only natural the comments had that direction, too.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By rs1 on 3/12/2009 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
This article is hardly an isolated incident. There are quite a few people here who seem like they have nothing better to do than look for any possible excuse to bring up their political opinions about Obama, liberals, Bush, terrorism, war in Iraq/Afshanistan, global warming, etc..

Go ahead and browse some of the other topics if you don't believe me.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By mindless1 on 3/14/2009 4:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Surely you can accept that their policies are influencing the news we read about? It would be silly to censor political statements as there is no tech to discuss, obviously the news is about a delay and why, not about the inner-workings of the tanker.

If you don't care to read comments about politics, you might have a reasonable argument in getting rid of these types of news articles on dailytech, except that it followed a prior article.

Followups are good, we can always choose not to click the link to articles or comments we don't want to read, nobody is forcing that on you.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By murphyslabrat on 3/12/2009 1:57:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That way, all the rest of us can finally get back to having meaningful discussions about technology on our technology-themed website.

Hey, no one forced you to read this article. Besides, this an exemplary case of where politics has everything to do with technology.

Now go read the article about that new SSD, and let us adults talk about grown-up things.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By rs1 on 3/12/2009 3:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Come now, are you seriously asserting that a thread entitled "Obama yo Momma" is an example of a "grown-up" discussion?

Looks to me more like an example of a repressed, bitter little neo-con who's upset that his party lost the election and is venting his frustrations online. And there's nothing wrong with that, per se. Repressed, bitter little neo-cons are fully entitled to vent their frustrations online if that's what they want. However, as a technology news site, this is *not* the proper venue for such things, so I politely ask that all venting (and celebrating, from the other side of the fence) be done elsewhere.

Besides, if you really look at the Boeing/Northrop issue from a "grown-up" point of view, you see that Obama is really not the one to blame for the Air Force's current lack of a modern tanker aircraft. Northrop won the initial contract bid long before Obama came to power. But then Boeing threw a hissy-fit, and has been using its money and clout to prevent the process from moving forward ever since. Boeing is the only party deserving of scorn. If they had accepted their loss in a graceful fashion, the tanker fleet would probably be under construction already. Further, even if Obama had been committed to funding the contract immediately, there's no guarantee with respect to when the dispute between Boeing and Northrop would finally be resolved, so still nothing would have happened in the short-term.

As "grown-up" as you claim to be, you've let your political biases blind you to the history of the tanker project that existed long before Obama took the reins.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By Keeir on 3/12/2009 5:57:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Northrop won the initial contract bid long before Obama came to power. But then Boeing threw a hissy-fit, and has been using its money and clout to prevent the process from moving forward ever since


... Boeing may have thrown a "hissy-fit", but the GAO (Government Accountability Office) confirmed the Boeing issues and recommended the overturning of the contract. The GAO is one of the least political of government agencies, as it typically in under control of the congress and has career type appointments (IE, people who are promoted and appointed in one adminstration, stay for a long time, up to 15 years). I think people really need to move past the idea that Boeing unfairly protested the award. If Boeing had unfairly protested the award, GAO would not have substantiated the protest.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By theapparition on 3/13/2009 10:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
This information is 100% correct. Boeing had a legitimate challenge to the Air Force contract, after it was improperly changed and the new requirements were never given to Boeing for bid.
Boeing and the GAO were spot on with thier concerns.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By mindless1 on 3/14/2009 4:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's a whole lot of nonsense. We are now reading about an ADDITIONAL delay, and speculating about why it's happening.

If you don't like the comments, w h y . a r e . y o u . s t i l l . r e a d i n g . t h e m ? ?

Grown-up is a nonsensical word, there's rational and not. It is not rational to mention the prior history of the tanker bids in the context of a new and different reason why it is delayed. That reason is why we have a news article about a political topic and comments appropriately thinking in political terms.

I'm not saying blame Obama, or any one person, but ultimately Boeing is definitely not in favor of delaying this 5 more years, nor is anyone else if it weren't for the political aspect of diverting funds to something else in our grand government spending spree.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By croc on 3/12/2009 7:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this is a DailyTech blog, not an Anandtech blog...


RE: Obama yo Momma
By Samus on 3/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Obama yo Momma
By wvh on 3/14/2009 12:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. It's not just this site though, most websites on any topic with a substantial American presence is filled with largely irrelevant (pseudo)political discussions about global warming, economy and political preference. I was hoping things would cool down after the elections, but alas... If there would be some kind of point behind all of it, fine, but mostly it's just endless whining and partisan bitterness.

Sorry for the irrelevant post, but it needs to be said.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By Screwballl on 3/12/2009 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
When the original contract was awarded, one local manufacturing plant in Mobile, AL had already started the hiring process and was ready to get to work within a few weeks... then Boeing pulled their crap and now those people are on hold or let go, and had to look for other jobs in the meantime.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By mindless1 on 3/14/2009 4:16:06 PM , Rating: 3
Boeing didn't pull any crap. It's the equivalent of you and another person bidding on who can make the cheapest 5 foot tall stack of bricks, then the other guy wins not because he did it cheaper, but because his stack was 6 feet tall instead of 5 while your entry did technically win.

Boeing spec'd what the Air Force asked for, the fault is entirely on the Air Force.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By dryloch on 3/12/2009 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 3
Boeing is not whining. The Air Force gave them a set of specifications to design their proposal around. They said that exceeding the specs would not gain you any advantage when the decision was made. They then decided to give it to French company Grummond because they exceeded the specs!!! That is not fair. Boeing did deserve a chance to exceed the specs if that is what the Air Force decided they wanted.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By Amiga500 on 3/12/2009 1:22:54 PM , Rating: 3
Grumman are not a French company you tool!!!

Grumman built that great French naval interceptor F-14, and their "sister" company Northrop built that icon of French strategic bombing B-2.

Seriously. Think. Then type.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By cbf on 3/12/2009 7:49:59 PM , Rating: 3
Mais oui. Grummond est Français. Grumman est américaine. Grummond rend le F-14 (Français-14!).


RE: Obama yo Momma
By Amiga500 on 3/12/2009 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
It might be cost effective to produce more, but lower paid, jobs than fewer, but better paid.

I say that as an aerospace engineer = not exactly vested interest in that opinion!

(Besides - right now, both Airbus and Boeing have enough on their plate to keep them very, very busy.)


RE: Obama yo Momma
By blowfish on 3/12/2009 11:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
What a load of crap. I'm sure you know very well that a given amount of money will create several jobs in the civil sector for the cost of a single one in military procurement.

So it's far better to use the funds to create more jobs elsewhere.

I'm also someone who hoped Grumman/EADS would win the contract. Now this gives Boeing time to pull their socks up. In five years, I wonder how many machinists' strikes they'll have? Those guys don't know when they've got it good - as soon as Boeing has orders in the books they're out.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By DemolitionInc on 3/13/2009 4:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think what most people forget is the fact, that military is a luxury. It provides some protection but has not return of investment. And seriously, which landforce is going to attack you, Mexico or Canada :-) But if you take this 13 billion and invest it in your aging and collapsing power grid, collapsing road bridges and your school system, so that your people will be able to design technology in 20 years as well, be able to get to work and have electricity available to fabricate, you get a lot more back in the long run.


RE: Obama yo Momma
By mindless1 on 3/14/2009 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
I think some people seem to forget that military is no luxury. How did the US achieve and maintain freedom? Military. How did the world stop the spread of Communism? Military. Why is it we didn't have to reasonably fear a war with Mexico, Canada, or others in recent history? Military.

The peace that you assume makes the military irrelevant, only exists because they're doing their job. While that doesn't mean we can just throw money at them on a whim or without limit, aircraft that are over 40 years old do need replaced. In this day and age, not being able to fly an airplane a long distance would be a step backwards, particularly when the world depends on the stability that a large, armed, free society fosters.

Our power grid is not collapsing, though it may need upgraded if everyone starts driving electric cars. Bridges and schools do need funds of course, but it does not have to be one way or the other, less essential pork can be trimmed from the budget instead.


Are we going to cut every new military project?
By Hardin on 3/12/2009 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 3
This and the rumors that Obama wants to get rid of the F-22 are troubling. Sure these planes are expensive, but we can't maintain 52 year old planes forever. I believe there was an article on daily tech about a year ago where some jets were grounded due to small fractures in the hull and these we rent even the 50 year old planes. Our jets wont last forever and we need to replace them. The best thing to do is to build better, and more efficient replacements and not keep the old designs.




RE: Are we going to cut every new military project?
By Keeir on 3/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Are we going to cut every new military project?
By ivanv4 on 3/12/2009 3:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 and the JSF serve different porpoises. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and to have the advantage it has to be the best of the best.

Meanwhile the JSF role is more of a multi-role aircraft to be exported to NATO and allies. Of course its cheaper; it use the same tech that was new when the F-22 was in development but cheaper(because of the experience with the f-22) and is mass produced.


By Orpheus333 on 3/12/2009 4:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you're talking about the F35 by lockheed it is a very much watered down version of the F22. USA doesn't export its best tech, even to allies.


By jjmcubed on 3/12/2009 7:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
The jets with the cracks are F-15s.

quote:
The F-22 is already nearly obsolete.


Guess that means the plane that has never been shot down by another military aircraft, the F-15 is way beyond obsolete. And that is correct. An F-15 has never been brought down by enemy forces... The F-15 has an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 loses.

In testing vs. F-15's, the F-22 has never lost a battle or even been close to defeat by F-15's. This includes battles of up to eight F15's Vs. one F-22. The F-22 may be over kill now, but this jet is about 15 years from now, not today.

Saying the F-35 is to surpass the F-22 is laughable. The F-35 is made for export and to fill the roll of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II(Warthog), AV8B Harrier Jump Jet, and F/A-18 Hornet(and maybe Super Hornet). As said, we won't even export the F-22 as they are the most capable aircraft we have. Japan and Australia have already asked formally, and the United States has declined.


By Keeir on 3/13/2009 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes... and you did a good point showing why procuring more F-22 seems to be.... non-sensical.

#1. We already have the "best" jet in the sky flying. Our airforce already is significantly better than China+Russia (#2 and #3 respectively)

#2. 100 F-22 is equal to 800! F-15 which are the "best" plane flying. We don't huge numbers of F-22

#3. As a plane that is already more than a decade old in terms of design, the F-22 is nearly obsolete. In 15+ years when we need the plane, we could have developed more and better planes. The F-35 is not equivelent to the F-22, but in terms of what we use Fighter Jets for, the F-35 is sufficient unless we expect to face both China, Russia, + some European countries without any support....

The cost to build more F-22 is staggering, and since they don't really have a mission at present, it does seem like a waste of DOD funds....


By Dribble on 3/13/2009 7:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
American military is all about minimising casualties. They will spend any amount of money to prevent an American death.

I agree this is somewhat incompatible with winning all out war but works ok for small conflicts, although it is very expensive. I bet the cost per man of sending an American abroad to fight (e.g. Iraq) is multiples of the cost for any other nation in the world.


Politics
By ecbsykes on 3/12/2009 12:16:31 PM , Rating: 4
This continues to be a good example of how politics interferes with getting the the men and women of the Armed Forces what they need, when they need it...




RE: Politics
By djc208 on 3/12/2009 12:35:52 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention that this is just the front end of the program. Even if a contract was awarded tomorrow (and it stuck this time) it would be months before someone started putting plane one together. The initial delivery date is probably years out.

This isn't a light switch, you can't just turn it back on later. You've spent the money, done the design work, and worked out the plan. Maybe you don't go full bore but to walk away just means it will be that much longer when you do decide to flip the switch.


The B-3 is cancelled...
By Amiga500 on 3/12/2009 1:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well... as far as I hear it is cancelled, I thought it was common knowledge by now.

There is no real need for it anyway. B-1bs and B-2s are enough to get the job done. The money can be better spent elsewhere.

Anyone clamouring for more strategic bombers should consider the US probably outnumbers the rest of the world... combined in terms of strategic bombers they can sortie.




RE: The B-3 is cancelled...
By Bateluer on 3/12/2009 2:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, the B-1Bs and B2s need to be replaced. Both aircraft are junk and a pain to support.


RE: The B-3 is cancelled...
By jjmcubed on 3/12/2009 7:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the B-1Bs and B2s need to be replaced


While the B-1Bs are watered down versions of the B-1As that Carter canceled, the B2s aren't going to be replaced anytime soon. Remember, we spent approx 929 million per bomber (including spare parts and support). The B2s have only been in service about 12 years, so there is no way we are going to scrap them anytime soon.


Reality
By knutjb on 3/12/2009 6:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to popular belief BOEING is not crying the DOD changed the criteria partway through the process. Boeing originally proposed a 777 tanker, the USAF said no because we found that a KC135R sized aircraft was more efficient in the real world than the KC10 for ferrying fighters and refueling small groups of fighters which was the bulk of refueling . So Boeing gave the Air Force what it had asked for a 757 with similar but better abilities than the 135. The program was rebid because of Darlene Drunion scamming for a job. Airbus jumped in and their tanker is within a foot in size of the KC10 yet holds 1/3 LESS fuel and carries less cargo. Because of the original snafu DOD was involved and Naval personnel looked at the bids with a false analogy bigger is better see above. Boeing cried foul when the DOD decided on a bigger aircraft and the 777 proposal was a better bang for the buck than the Airbus was. Also the Airbus will not be built in the US it will only be assembled here. The structural parts will be built in Europe then shipped to Alabama then assembled keeping a large chunk of the money spent going overseas. One additional point the British were buying ammunition from a company in Belgum and when the Brits went to war the Belgian government stopped shipment of the ammo because they didn't believe in the war. The tanker is like ammo to the war effort and do you want external forces to dictate what we do?




RE: Reality
By SilverHair on 3/12/2009 11:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Do a check on how much of the 787 Dreamliner is outsourced.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/boeing/787/787primer... click on Building it

quote:
The 787 represents a new way of assembling airplanes. Boeing will use outside suppliers to fabricate about 70 percent of the Dreamliner as opposed to 51 percent for existing planes. Only final assembly will be done in Everett. New plants in Italy, Japan and South Carolina were built to manufacture the large composite pieces.


Granted the 787 is not a military aircraft.


RE: Reality
By Bubbacub on 3/13/2009 4:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
you have any proof or links about the belgian bullets - sounds like FUD to me. happy to be proven wrong


Gotta Love Government Oversight
By Talon75 on 3/12/2009 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
I do hope that someone in the government comes to their senses, but I won't hold my breath...




RE: Gotta Love Government Oversight
By Goty on 3/12/2009 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Neither will I. Why should they choose now to start making responsible decisions?


this is retarded
By Gul Westfale on 3/12/2009 11:10:29 PM , Rating: 1
no matter whether you prefer boeing to airbus, this is retarded. another 5 years of taking military brass to corporate bribing events (i mean, info trips or whatever they call them), 5 more years of uncertainty over hundreds of jobs... and for what?? either way the military get a new plane, and the US taxpayer has to pay for it.

so why not save some trouble (and undoubtedly countless millions of dollars) and make a decision ow? a coin toss is probably better than dragging this out for another 5 years... and have you noticed that 5 years is after the next elections? so the next administration will have to deal with this shit, not the current one. no balls, obama? afraid of a little decision? how stupid. well, the government doesn't have to pay, or wait for 5 years for a paycheck. it's the taxpayer that gets screwed, and for no reason.




RE: this is retarded
By mindless1 on 3/14/2009 4:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's the taxpayer that gets screwed when the government doesn't spend billions on something? That's a new one. The government is spending plenty, it's more a question of where to spend the money. Frankly I think they should've replaced the tanker 10 years ago, not in the middle of a recession, but now that the recession is here and with no major military threats, a delay is in effect a reduction in spending money that can be put to a better purpose at this time.


white house saving money?
By iamted on 3/12/2009 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder how much co2 those planes flying now produce, and how many mpg they actually get or maybe its gallons per mile, so by getting a new fleet we could save the planet, save on fuel costs, save some lives but nope not a chance for anything that includes military in the title. i wonder how many jobs this would create or save. if it doesnt get passed soon then they can go get a job at gm im sure that well be giving them some more money here soon, or chrysler.

heres to change we can see




Like Everything Else It's about $
By tech329 on 3/13/2009 5:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who thinks our military budget, which far exceeds that of any other nation, isn't about money barely deserves stating their opinion. We need a strong military. That is not arguable. However, a decent percentage of the manufacturing has been moved to other countries. And that hasn't altered the cost to taxpayers one bit. So Americans have lost good jobs but still pay a premium for weaponry.

It's about money and always has been.




Change you cannot believe
By FPP on 3/16/2009 5:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
What for? Is it so hard to make a choice on a flying gas station? Pick one and move on. This says everything about the state of this nation.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki