backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by NYBandits.. on Aug 26 at 8:47 AM

The Air Force tanker drama continues...

The ongoing saga between Northrop Grumman/EADS, Boeing, the Air Force, Congress, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to languish on in the face of an aging tanker fleet. Northrop Grumman/EADS formally won the contract earlier this year -- the $35B contract would have given the Air Force 179 Airbus A330-based KC-45 aircraft to replace 531 KC-135 tankers.

Boeing filed an official protest of the deal with the GAO in early March and received redemption in mid-June when the GAO agreed that errors were made during the selection process. "We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions ... obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision," said the GAO at the time.

It now appears that Boeing isn't quite satisfied with just having the competition reopened -- according to the Wall Street Journal, it now wants more time to design a suitable aircraft to meet the Air Force's needs or it is threatening to walk away from the competition altogether. Boeing now wants an additional six months to submit a proper bid that the Air Force would be willing to accept.

"I think the option we would have if we were not given the six months, there is a really high likelihood that we would no-bid the program," said Boeing defense unit head Jim Albaugh.

The Defense Department is already considering giving both Northrop Grumman/EADS and Boeing two additional months to submit new bids for the competition according to close sources, but Boeing's Albaugh said that is not enough. "This is an airplane that's going to be in the inventory 40 years. What we're asking for is an additional four months to have a meaningful competition."

For Boeing, the request for more time and the threat of a "no-bid" is somewhat of a payback to Northrop Grumman/EADS which performed a similar feat back in 2007. The maneuvering by Northrop Grumman/EADS forced the Air Force to make some changes to the requirements for the competition that put Boeing's entry at a disadvantage.

Boeing's current proposal is based around a 767-200 airframe -- it is simply too small and doesn't meet the fuel capacity requirements of the Air Force. Albaugh acknowledges that without the extra time to bid a larger version of the 767-200, it will lose the contract.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is getting ridiculous...
By javiergf on 8/22/2008 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 4
EADS won, then goverment cancel the bid to give another chance to Boing, and now Boing is asking for more time to present a second offer? C'mon!




RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/22/2008 11:49:52 AM , Rating: 5
Well an old fact of life is that sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease (unfortunately).


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Solandri on 8/22/2008 2:51:43 PM , Rating: 5
From what I read in the GAO report, what happened is: Air Force gave some performance requirements the plane had to meet. Boeing asked if they would be given credit for exceeding some of those requirements (size, range). Air Force said no. Boeing submitted a bid which met those requirements. EADS submitted a bid which exceeded those requirements. Air Force awarded the contract to EADS partially based on it exceeding the requirements of size/range, factors it had told Boeing would not affect the decision.

Boeing cried foul. GAO reviewed the process and told the Air Force you can't do that. Do it again and do it right this time. Air Force gave both competitors new requirements, but now these requirements are for a larger plane with more range. EADS bid already matches the new requirements. Boeing plane does not. Boeing (understandably) asks for more time to redesign its plane to match new requirements.

Anyhow, I don't believe the Air Force is allowed to award a contract without at least two bidders. So Boeing is going to get the time it wants. EADS did the same thing (threatening to withdraw its bid) during the first bid. It's just the way these things work. Wasteful perhaps, but I would rather the decision be made based on the best design each bidder can put forth, not based on some half-assed design rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline. So in this case I think oiling the squeaking wheels is going to result in a better outcome for the Air Force.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mezman on 8/22/2008 5:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
That's exactly right. The Air Force decided on it's selection criteria during the pre-award survey and then didn't follow it's own criteria and selected NG/EADS by giving credit for exceeding the requirements when the USAF said it wasn't gonna. It's good that Boeing is getting a second, fair, shot I think.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By FITCamaro on 8/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Screwballl on 8/23/2008 11:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
This is something that affects me locally... we have Eglin AFB, Tyndall, Pensacola NAS (in Florida) and Mobile, AL within range that will be dealing with much of the work as long as EADS gets the bid. There are a lot of civilian and military contractors here, and each one of them that were familiar with this situation stated pretty much that same thing:
Boeing cannot come up with a qualifying product without severely going over the proposed budget AND outsourcing a majority of the work outside of the US. Boeing submitted a design that was based on the bare requirements only. EADS chose to go above and beyond and submitted a better design and won the contract. The original contract was awarded properly but this is just a case of Boeing being a big baby and delaying the inevitable.

Let Boeing handle the commercial sector and EADS/Northrup/Grumman to the military. The military can award a bid for only one bidder if there have been previous bids that did not meet the current requirements, such as in this case. They gave Boeing several months and if they cannot comply or come up with a design within the requirements, then they lose the bid, even with a "no-bid".

In this case, oiling the squeaky wheel will not help, the tire is flat.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Solandri on 8/24/2008 12:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The original contract was awarded properly but this is just a case of Boeing being a big baby and delaying the inevitable.

Of all the government branches, the GAO has been the most reliable and unbiased in my experience. If they say something was done properly or improperly, they're usually right.

quote:
Let Boeing handle the commercial sector and EADS/Northrup/Grumman to the military.

Boeing is usually the Department of Defense's #2 contractor in terms of dollars awarded (Northrop-Grumman is usually #3).

http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/advisory.asp...

I do appreciate that you gave disclaimers for your stance. If I do the same: I have no connection to any of this. I interned for Lockheed while in undergraduate school, and I did some contract work on simulators for the USAF at a previous job.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By EarthsDM on 8/22/2008 3:17:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well an old fact of life is that sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease (unfortunately).


Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets replaced.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By MrBlastman on 8/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Radnor on 8/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By MrBlastman on 8/22/2008 12:21:23 PM , Rating: 4
Well, if the world wants us to continue to be their police force, we need to keep our Military strong. Just look at Georgia - they get invaded by the Russians and what happens?

They call the USA crying for our help asking us to send in our troops.

Please.

The rest of the world loves to throw mud at America - except when they are in trouble. The minute they get in a jam they come crying to us where a few months earlier they might have been spouting all forms of hatred in the air about us.

100% Hypocrisy

We might not be perfect - nobody is, but we are a darned fine nation. National Defense is of utmost priority. It is why we have the freedoms we have. Without it, freedom would have died a long time ago in America. The only fault with that logic is right now freedom in America is trying to be destroyed from the inside out by our own Government, crazy citizens and other loons. Fortunately with the way our Constitution is set up, I have a feeling we'll continue to be around a while longer.

Keeping our Military Tech on our soil only helps shore up our ability to defend ourselves and keep ourselves strong. If we falter, it is our own fault, not someone elses.

I love the rest of the world and the variety of culture that abounds. It is a wonderful place. We can not though, be expected to sacrifice the means to protect ourselves when we have the ability to do it as a gesture of goodwill.

Something about Troy accepting a horse of some sort comes to mind.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Ammohunt on 8/22/2008 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 5
Georgia and other former Warsaw pack countries have been Americas stauchest allies since the fall of the USSR. They are not at all like the whiney ass European surrender monkeys. I personaly would sooner send troops in defense of a fledgling democracy like georgia then some european countries.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By saiga6360 on 8/22/2008 3:21:15 PM , Rating: 4
Oh yeah. We did such a bang up job with Georgia.

What a mess.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Kiijibari on 8/22/2008 4:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
Where is the difference to US invading Iraq ?
Sure there where WoMD in Iraq as US officials told us all the time.

Now Russian officials told us that Georgians shot first ... why should we not believe them ?

Ok, Gorgia is a democracy and we have to defend the freee world ... well is it really ?
Just read what OSCE wrote:

quote:
Most monitored TV channels 19 , including public TV, devoted significant and favorable coverage to activities of the authorities. For example, four main TV channels broadcast live a 22-minute prime- time news item about a meeting of the President, cabinet ministers and regional officials in Kutaisi. Media coverage of appearances of the President, Government ministers and local government representatives at ceremonial events, often in the presence of UNM candidates introduced as such, indirectly benefited the UNM campaign. During the media monitoring of the last six weeks of the election campaign, public TV devoted similar proportions of its political and election prime-time news coverage to the United Opposition (18 per cent) and the UNM (17 percent). While the ruling party was given overwhelmingly positive coverage, the coverage of the main opposition bloc was mainly neutral. The biggest share, however, was devoted to the President and the Government (together 32 per cent) with an overwhelmingly positive tone

quote:
The vote count was assessed less positively; some 22 per cent of IEOM observers assessed it as bad or very bad. A considerable number of PECs did not perform basic reconciliation procedures before opening the ballot boxes, such as counting and entering into the protocols the number of signatures on the voter lists or unused ballots. The mandatory mathematical consistency checks before and at the end of the actual count were frequently skipped. In one of three counts observed, voters’ choices were not announced aloud during the count. Determination of ballot validity was not always reasonable and consistent. Unauthorized persons were frequently present and at times participated in the process. IEOM observers reported three cases of outright falsification.

http://www.osce.org/item/31268.html

If you call this a democracy, then Russia is one of the finest, let's protect them ;-)


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By BZDTemp on 8/22/2008 3:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Pardon. But what makes you think the rest of the world wants or needs the US to be a police force?

And what exactly has the US done in recent years that was not motivated by it's own interest?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By kyp275 on 8/22/2008 4:19:22 PM , Rating: 4
what exactly has any nation done throughout the history of mankind that was not motivated by its own interest?

it's not that the rest of the world wants or needs the US to be the police, though some certainly do, it's just that nobody else has stepped up to the plate.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/22/2008 5:00:23 PM , Rating: 5
What makes you think the rest of the world doesn't want or need one of the superpowers to intervene. If you feel more comfortable relying on China or Russia, go ahead.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2008 5:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hit the nail on the head.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By The Boston Dangler on 8/22/2008 12:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
100% american? there's a ton of things we already get from other countries, particularly england, germany and sweden. for example, the m1 mbt would have no armor nor a gun without them. not to mention all the stuff that gets sub-contracted out to johnny foreigner.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Gideonic on 8/22/2008 12:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't 100% American. There was a slide somewhere showing the parts of both of the last planes competing. Both of the planes had A LOT of stuff done in all sorts of different countries. Northrop was some 40%ish American built (engines for instance) while Boeing was around 70%. ( I hope i can find it again)

The logic: "Let's buy Boeing, then we won't have to outsource anything" doesn't really hold water imo.

Considering how much problems Boeing has caused with this contract and the quite dire need for new tankers, I really think Boeing deserves to lose it for a change. They are AFs primary contractor, therefore have a lot of other stuff to hold them on the water. Maybe the loss would finally cause them to get their asses together build a outright better plane next round.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Solandri on 8/22/2008 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, all of aerospace is moving to a manufacturing model where suppliers from all over the world are used. It makes sense - if some company is really good at making avionics, I would like to see those avionics on both Boeing and Airbus planes. That way everyone gets to benefit from that company's superior technology, not just half the planes out there. Contrast this to game consoles where console manufacturers sign popular game titles to exclusive deals, so you're forced to buy multiple consoles if you want all the best games. It's stupid and a waste of money. So I don't think whether it's American or foreign should really play a role.

I disagree that Boeing deserves to lose the contract though. The Air Force should get the best plane it can get for its money, whether it's a Boeing plane or an Airbus plane. Boeing's punishment for the earlier 767 tanker bribery scandal should be fines and possibly jail time for some of its employees. But the punishment should not be something that negatively affects the Air Force's ability to get the best plane it can.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/22/2008 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is puzzling. Boeing should lose for building closer to what the Air Force spec'd? Methink you have that backwards. What happened was the Air Force changed their minds about what they wanted and the competitors should not be penalized for that. Both companies still have the same time and option to make changes if there is an extension granted, so they can both design towards the new target.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2008 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Air Force didn't change their minds. EADs said, "Change the contract or we walk away". It was done and it gave EADs an advantage.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By GGT on 8/22/2008 5:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
And now that "advantage" is being magnified by yet further changes that have appeared in the new draft RFP that the Air Force has now released. Basically, they are now putting on paper the secret rules they used before to hand the contract to EADS. Why should Boeing jump to bid on a job they are sure to lose with time constraints and requirements deliberately algined against them?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/22/2008 10:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Changing the contract WAS essentially changing their minds. I feel bad for Boeing, but that doesn't mean they should get the contract if they can't come up with a better design given the time needed. IMO it's worth the wait to see, 40 years is a long time.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By rudolphna on 8/22/2008 10:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
yes, and EADS supplies planes to nearly every country that has an AF. :) Boeing builds good planes. They build reliable planes. They have the vast majority of the Assembly line in the US, Airbus doesnt. Boeing also owns McDonnell Douglas, as well. But in the long run, its far better, IMHO to keep Boeing supplying airplanes for the Airforce, as long as there arent safety and real problems. The A330 is a relatively new airframe. Better, maybe. But the 767 is a PROVEN airframe. Proven to be reliable and safe.
Another problem i have with EADS/Airbus is how they try to force American Airframe makers to use European engines, so they will pass the JAA's "safety" testing. (i.e. JAA threatens boeing for its 787 to not pass its regulations if it does not use Rolls Royce engines over GE or P&W engines. Its a political thing, that I despise. It should be up to the customer (the airline, or the AF) to decide what engines are installed on the plane, not the freakin Joint Aviation Authority.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Calin on 8/24/2008 3:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
Boeing tries to sell the Air Force planes based on airframes that will go out of production in several years, and out of support in something like 20 years. This is a big deal for planes intended to work 40 years, and in sometime difficult conditions (many flights close to max weight, difficult flight conditions).
If the Boeing tanker loses the competition, it plans to end 767 production - and it will end production as soon as the Air Force tankers are built. This means that, if the Air Force suddenly needs 50 more tankers 3 years in the contract, Boeing will need to rebuild its production line, or the Air Force will need to make a new proposal, accept new bids for new and different airframes.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By jbartabas on 8/22/2008 12:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am all for keeping our Military Technology and resources 100% American.


The question being: is any aircraft by Boeing really 100% American.

I am not convinced that anything as complex as an airplane is 100% from one country. Anybody knows more about that?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Connoisseur on 8/22/2008 12:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
I believe boeing, in building the Dreamliner, outsourced many of the individual parts (wings, tails, fuselage etc.) to other technologically advanced nations and is assembling the full aircraft in the US. This is based on the fact that some companies (local and foreign) can simply make certain parts faster/better. So no, it's not 100% american. But in the end, the revenue for the full aircraft goes to an american company.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Spuke on 8/22/2008 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But in the end, the revenue for the full aircraft goes to an american company.
So the other contractors are doing it for free?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By bohhad on 8/22/2008 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
no, the contractors received revenue for their parts, which boeing bought. he's saying boeing then assembles the parts, and receives all the revenue from the sale of the completed plane


By foolsgambit11 on 8/22/2008 6:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
Except that the revenue for many of the workers on the plane. What you seem to be saying is, "It's okay as long as it's an American CEO gets the big paycheck. Screw the assembly line workers whose jobs were outsourced. We'll still call it American made."

Don't get me wrong. I, personally, am all for outsourcing. Each company is responsible to its shareholders for maximizing value. How they do that, within the confines of the law, is their business. I just wanted to point out a common confusion found in your statement. I also support the lifting of all restrictions on the free movement of labor. That way I could follow my job to India, or China, or whatever, if I wanted to.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By rudolphna on 8/22/2008 10:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
yes, and they have to do that. Airlines from other countries may be more willing to buy the planes if it provides their countries with jobs.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By NYBandits on 8/26/2008 8:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Other countries would buy our Air Force planes/jets in a second if our government would allow them too (we have very good reasons to restrict the sales). Just look at the recent sales of the P3 internationally.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2008 12:48:46 PM , Rating: 3
> "I am not convinced that anything as complex as an airplane is 100% from one country. Anybody knows more about that? "

In truth, the Boeing proposal is only slightly more 'American' than the Northrup Grummond bid.

Still, there does appear to be at least a small amount of meat in their contention that the bid process was not conducted fairly, and that the USAF changed requirements details after they submitted their proposal. I personally have no problem with a four-month delay in this very expensive project, if it means a potentially better solution for all.

Personally, I think EADS will probably still win out, but it doesn't hurt to address Boeing's concerns.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By karielash on 8/22/2008 4:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
The problem that I see is Boeing made their bed and now they do not like it. They took it for granted with their first proposal that they were an 'automatic' win, when they failed to win they started screaming, not to mention several Boeing/Air Force personnel ending up in jail over some dubious contract behaviour.

I agree from the report that the requirements changed, but Boeing did not care the first time round because they could not lose, now they need time to prepare what they should have presented first time around. Even if Boeing do end up winning I hope the process has taught US defense contractors that the auto win button is no longer in the game, it might make them a little more prepared to deal reasonably and present adequate systems the first time round.

We would all benefit from that.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/22/2008 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 3
No, it is false that they should have presented something else the first time around. That is the whole point of these "requirements" you so quickly dismiss. The competition was to build what the Air Force asked for, not something more or different than that.

They definitely showed they "cared" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by bother to bid at all. There can't be some presumption there is an "auto win" button when they already DIDN'T auto-win. The only lessons that need taught are not to rush into the process, either by coming up with specs before the AF knew what they really wanted, and not by selecting a winning bid based on something other than the rules of the contest. Anything else would be madness.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By karielash on 8/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/24/2008 1:37:56 AM , Rating: 3
How easily you avoid the central issue. That issue is a finalized, non-changing, engineering spec against which both companies design their best alternative as a bid.

There's really no other BS that matters, it's as simple as thing. When the AF changed their minds they should have immediately issued a revision and given both companies the sufficient amount of time to redirect their efforts towards the new specifications.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Calin on 8/24/2008 3:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
The issue was a changing engineering spec.
Or that's what it seems to be, at least for me - while the tanker capabilities were required first, extra requirements were later added (oh, we have this big plane? Why won't we use it for cargo transportation, if we don't need it for fuel? What about medical evacuation? What about troop transport? What about this? What about that?).
While they are right to request multiple roles (air tankers are needed plenty at some times, and none at other times, and can easily fly other types of missions during pauses in fueling needs), the final tally took into account things not specified in initial requirements (those for a TANKER)


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By ikkeman2 on 8/25/2008 7:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
the RFP specifically stated the multirole aspect would be considered, and considered important.

The problem is that the RFP was written by Boeing based on beating the kc-135 with the kc-767AT.
The NG/EADS kc-30 beats the kc-767AT in every aspect, unless you include not beeing bigger than the kc-135


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Connoisseur on 8/22/2008 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes I think, as a culture, we're so caught up in the "bigger, faster, cheaper" mentality that we don't care where our goods come from at the expense of local jobs, local economy and (potentially) security. Unless the Boeing submission is grossly inadequate or delayed as compared to the EADS submission, the bid should go to an American company. Not to say that competition is bad, but I think we should lean in favor of local manufacturers whenever it's close.

This is all contingent on the assumption that boeing's labor force is primarily American. If they outsource most of their work anyway, it's a moot point WHO gets the bid.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Moohbear on 8/22/2008 12:24:28 PM , Rating: 1
Of course, the US armed forces should buy only 100% US made equipment. And of course, other countries should buy only armament from the US instead of indigenous ones and certainly not from any other foreign competitors, like Russia, Europe or China. Or not buy/build anything of they're "evil".

Protectionist much?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By MrBlastman on 8/22/2008 12:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
It would be shortsighted to believe that Russian technology is inferior.

On the contrary.

Russian Military Technology is quite brilliant might I add. The simplicity of some of their systems allow the complexity of a few of their systems to create a very robust piece of machinery.

Take a look at the SU-25T for instance. Simplistic aircraft but a very effective military machine when coupled with some of their weapon technology.

Take a look at the AA-11 Archer air-to-air heat seeking missile. Its off-aspect seeker technology coupled with the missile package as a whole is _vastly_ superior to anything America has in its AAM Heat Seeking Arsenal including the AIM-9X Sidewinder.

The Archer is a deadly piece of equipment that should be feared.

Their Long-Range radar guided Air-to-Air missile tech even threatens the venerable Aim-120 AMRAAM which is a staple munition on our fighter aircraft.

What about the Ka-50 Black Shark attack helocopter? With its latest upgrade plus its counter-rotating blades present the west (and the remainder of the world) with a very formiddable attack helocopter. Coupled with Air-To-Ground radar and it becomes quite effective.

That isn't even going into the thrust-vectoring capabilities of the Su-37 (which are mitigated to some degree by the RCS of the F-22).

I haven't even mentioned the Mi-24 hind, the most widely exported attack helocopter that is used around the world and the one that has participated in the largest number of military conflicts.

No - the Russians do indeed have amazing hardware. In some cases it exceeds the United States technology. Interestingly enough, a large amount of it is manufactured by... Russia alone by Russians for Russians.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By DASQ on 8/22/2008 12:41:04 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, the Russians do have some nice toys. And good thing they were able to keep their economy in good shape while they were busy making these technologies.

Oh wait.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By saiga6360 on 8/22/2008 3:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
Russia is getting fat on oil just fine without much American help. Why do you think we are still scared of them?


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By DASQ on 8/22/2008 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
By 'bigger, faster, cheaper' he really means "trying to keep afloat in the world economy that is reducing reliance on the American consumerism".

Neither of the bidders are building an 'All American' contract. This is not World War 2. Get into the present already. American companies thinking like you (and your root reply) are the ones going to tank (ba-dum TSH!) first.


By MrBlastman on 8/22/2008 12:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please note I only mentioned the Military.

I also mentioned I'm perfectly ok with foreign collaboration on everything else. In fact, foreign collaboration is neccesary on everything else.

I realize neither are building an 'All American' contract, but, it doesn't hurt to keep the planning and design within America. In the end, if we had to, we could produce the parts needed to sustain the aircraft far easier this way than if the design was from foreign soil.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By ElFenix on 8/23/2008 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 3
in WW2 our best fighter had an english engine. the P-51 Mustange was not THE P-51 Mustang until it got the Merlin.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Calin on 8/24/2008 3:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Northrop-Grumman -EADS ?
The Northrop-Grumman (and EADS) tanker will be built on an american production line, raised from ground up. As such, not much more (if any) of the new Boeing tanker would be built in U S of A than the EADS one.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Kiijibari on 8/22/2008 12:14:48 PM , Rating: 3
There is no 100% American, these times are over. Just look at the new and shiny boeing 787. Most of the parts are from overseas, e.g. Japan & Europe (Italy).

“Basically ... we’re snapping it together,” said Tom Wroblewski, president of the union representing Boeing production workers in the Seattle area. “This is a whole new way of assembling an aircraft.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18741289/

I do not see much of a difference between a European airplane design, assembled in Kansas with parts from all over the world, against a US designed aircraft, assembled in the US with parts form all over the world ...

Welcome to globalization ;-)

The most important thing for the U.S. troops is to get the best stuff available on the current market. If boeing cant deliver the best solution, then the US troops should simply buy the planes somewhere else.

Last but not least, Europe is a reliable partner since WWII. Even if some countries did not share the U.S.' Iraq strategy it is something "different" compared to North Korea or Iran ;-)

cheers

Kiijibari


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By michael67 on 8/22/2008 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am all for keeping our Military Technology and resources 100% American.

Think we euro whiner should cancel all US military contracts beginning with the F35.

What are you thinking IF Europe cancels all F35 planes the prizes of the F35 would go up by 40% ore so.
Big projects like these can only don by idler the EU ore US every generation.
So should all contracts only be US ore should there be also some work for EU countries.

Because saying "Only 100% American" just makes you sounds stupid, and clueless whit wat go's around in the world.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By MrBlastman on 8/22/2008 6:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is about National Defense and Security, not everyday commerce. Like I said before - I love foreign trade and co-operation when it comes to civilian matters.

When you involve things which help defend and protect the structural integrity of our freedoms, no compromises should be made. This includes outsourcing our work.

How can you expect us to compromise our national security and well-being in any reasonable fashion?

This is where the difference is. Re-read my post ;)

Oh, and if you don't want our F-35's that is fine. Your Eurofighters and Rafael's are fine aircraft in their own respect. You also have the Mirage 2000 which I, an American, drool over.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By michael67 on 8/23/2008 2:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
shale we disbanden NATO then also because whats the point.

And whit the "100% US only" aditude America is runing in to the same problems the USSR was running.
Spending way to mouths on militairy, US economics is all ready crumbeling under the stress of to mouths spending on militairy.

And American militairy contractors are getting away riping off "US tax payers", just by waving the flag.
Its a shame most of you dont see it.

Fear is a mouths easyer emotion to controle by leaders, then let people see positive tings.
Why do you tink there are so many negitive politacal campains?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/undecid...

I would strongly advice all fans of the “only 100% American” model (actually everyone left ore right) to take a good look at the documentaries of Adam Curtis how American society is manipulated to adopt a extreme form of Capitalism and Nationalism, by the "captains of industry" because they ware scared shirtless they would loose there power to control society and make more money.

He analyses not only US but global history by the use of psychoanalysis, these documentaries are very powerful to open up eyes left and right, and are also not left ore right orientated as he is evenly harsh on left as on right wing party's.

It will also show in “The century of self” that for example one of America's greatest presidents, “Roosevelt” would even bin seen by curren average EU standards as "EXTREEMLY LEFT"

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...
“The power of nightmares” is a good start also “The century of self” is also very good

watching these multiple prize wining documentaries “could” change the way you look at the world.
Imho these docu’s should be shown to every one above 16 years of age.
(The complexity of the subject’s here, make it unsuitable for anyone younger)

Anyway worst thing that could happen is you waste a hour of your time, but on the other hand you could start to learn why other people think different then you, ore like now “me thinking different then you”.
Just remember these are BBC and not FOX docu’s they require some thinking on your part.
quote:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
Those who fail to learn history CORRECTLY.. are simply doomed.

Don't remember ware the quote comes from but it has a lot of truth in it.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By BZDTemp on 8/22/2008 3:36:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am all for keeping our Military Technology and resources 100% American.


I certainly get the idea of keeping business local to have the best possible control and also keep the most of the money. However getting the best tool for the job must be #1 on the list.

Also since we are talking about a tanker it's a little bit funny wanting 100% American. After all what are you gonna put in the tank?

It may not be a problem just now but domestic oil is running out quickly and already now most the oil poured into American tanks are coming from other parts of the world!


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Proteusza on 8/25/2008 4:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
I hope your "military technology" doesnt include any computers. Since, y'no, all of those are manufactured in either China, Korea, Taiwan or Japan.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By tmouse on 8/22/2008 12:33:01 PM , Rating: 3
Well if you bother to read the GAO report; the situation was that the Air force CHANGED the rules mid game which benefitted the Grumman/EADS design. They stated they would not bid if they could not use a larger plane frame (the original spec requested a smaller frame). Boeing was compliant by submitting a proposal using a smaller model. There were also points given for extras which the original request specifically stated would NOT be used in the final decision, again favoring Grumman. Now the GAO said the proposal request had to be done over and this time both parties had to know ALL the rules from the onset with NO further changes. It’s not unreasonable, if the Air force is keeping the changes applied AFTER the original request, to allow Boeing an opportunity to submit a proposal incorporating changes to address these NEW elements that effect the final decision.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki