Here we go again

[spejic]

I'm usually in the "buy American" camp. But the very first priority should be the needs of the military. Boeing has been years late in delivering tankers to Japan and Italy and the Wedgetail to Australia, incurring large fines in the process. Meanwhile, in the first procurement battle, Airbus took a plane off the line, decked it out for refueling, and had it in the Air Forces hands for demonstrations while Boeing could only show paper designs. They also committed to having the first plane delivered two years ahead of schedule. That just sounds like a killer argument for Northrop/Airbus.

[11bee]

Congrats Bob, you have won the title of Official Fact Checker on a website devoted to model airplanes. That is a pretty lofty title, I hope you can continue to live up to it

Wow dude, Wow. So... C-130J, U-28, SDB, GPS Block III/IV, NCCT, DCGS, MQ-9, U-2S, CV-22, RC-135W, LAIRCM, F-16 CCIP, MSTC, GBU-38 and may others are all trainwrecks? I think if you stick to one MOP (you should know what that is since you're an acquisition and T&E expert), say, Nunn-McCurdy breaches (again, you should be familiar) you'll find that the AF is now worse than anyone else.

Spongebob

For the record "Dude", I'm not an expert in acquisition. However, if it makes you sleep better at night, I am familiar with the terms you threw out above. Nice collection of acronyms as well. Totally impressed.

I'm just an ex-army grunt that now spends a good portion of my day job managing the environmental cleanups at military bases around the country. Nothing too exciting. My only background in military aviation (aside from flying in the back of army helos as "cargo") is a life long interest in the subject. I never claimed to be anything more or anything less. I'm assuming that your aviation-related credentials are similar to mine since many of the programs that you listed above have been around much longer than the 10 years I referenced in my post. I kinda figured an expert would have known that. Next time try to provide some relevant examples.

Just out of curiosity, how many of the programs referenced above came in on time and on budget? The CV-22? Oops, not that one.... over budget and late. The GPS Block III/IV? Running a few years late at this point. I'm betting it's actually a pretty short list. I'd be interested in checking on the rest of the examples but there's a game on tonight and I just don't have time. Not exactly the best way to support an argument that the AF is running a tight ship. Given all this, you may want to double check some of your "facts" on Wiki before posting. However, I do agree with your statement that "the AF is now worse than anyone else".

My comment about AF acquisition being a trainwreck stands.

My belief that selecting Boeing for the tanker bid is the best thing for both the AF and the country also stands as well.

This is turning comical. Why don't we just do the rest of the folks here a favor and agree to disagree on the tanker issue and call it a night?

Thanks dude,

John

[Spongebob]

This is turning comical. Why don't we just do the rest of the folks here a favor and agree to disagree on the tanker issue and call it a night?

Sure. To be honest, this is about the 85th argument I've had on here in the last 3 months and I'm pretty much done anyway. I'll take responsibility for all of them and admit I know nothing about aviation, acquisition, the military or even scale modeling. I am just a fan boy and apologize for having nothing of value to contribute to this site. Sorry.

I do know many acquisition folks who are very good at what they do, do the right thing when it's hard (such as having a congressional staffer telling you to do something that's illegal based on the FAR's) and generally deserve a lot more credit than being told that they suck at their job on a modelling forum based on a food fight between multiple interested and uninterested parties.

I can say, for a fact, that almost everyone on the gov't (and contractors depsite what you read -- not the OEM leadership) is very focused on giving guys like Stormer the best gear they can in the deck of cards they are handed.

Happy Modeling.

Spongebob

Edited September 29, 2009 by Spongebob

[Collin]

and admit I know nothing about aviation, acquisition, the military or even scale modeling. I am just a fan boy and apologize for having nothing of value to contribute to this site. Sorry.

Spongebob

Does that mean I get your nice new office, in that fancy E-2D building, you just built across the street from us?

ATIS

[Spongebob]

Does that mean I get your nice new office, in that fancy E-2D building, you just built across the street from us?

Just a cube but it's huge (about 10x8) and very, very nice with shelf space for models. The rent for an office there must be insane based on the cube price and probably why 4 are open on the first floor (not sure about the 2nd deck).

All we need is for the Grumman dudes to provide a coffee maker and it'll be sweet.

Spongebob

[Murph]

I can say, for a fact, that almost everyone on the gov't (and contractors depsite what you read -- not the OEM leadership) is very focused on giving guys like Stormer the best gear they can in the deck of cards they are handed.

Sponge,

I thought they were the source of all known evil in the world.

Regards,

Murph

[GreyGhost]

Congrats Bob, you have won the title of Official Fact Checker on a website devoted to model airplanes. That is a pretty lofty title, I hope you can continue to live up to it

For the record "Dude", I'm not an expert in acquisition. However, if it makes you sleep better at night, I am familiar with the terms you threw out above. Nice collection of acronyms as well. Totally impressed.

I'm just an ex-army grunt that now spends a good portion of my day job managing the environmental cleanups at military bases around the country. Nothing too exciting. My only background in military aviation (aside from flying in the back of army helos as "cargo") is a life long interest in the subject. I never claimed to be anything more or anything less. I'm assuming that your aviation-related credentials are similar to mine since many of the programs that you listed above have been around much longer than the 10 years I referenced in my post. I kinda figured an expert would have known that. Next time try to provide some relevant examples.

<....>

John

Staying out of the argument at hand but I do need to point out, Sponge is a Former SH-60 and E-2C Aviator who is now employed in the Defense Industry ... He has solid Experience & Credentials in what he speaks about ...

Gregg

[Aggressor Supporter]

Like F106A, I used to care. I will be more surprised if they actually make a decision in a timely manner and stick with it.

[Waco]

Since there are some folks here who seem obsessed with blaming the Air Force's acquisition process solely for the failure to procure a new tanker, let me throw a few more wrinkles into the argument.

From the beginning, Congress itself bears much of the blame for this mess. That began after Boeing submitted an unsolicited offer to make KC-767s available to the Air Force before it had even created a requirement to replace any of its existing tanker force...that was in 2000. After that offer was release by Boeing, and before the AF had begun drafting an RFP or starting the formalized process to acquire a new tanker, it was the House of Representatives that drafted legislation directing the Air Force to procure a new tanker, by any arrangement available. It was the House of Representatives that put a ludicrously short timeline on the procurement process, practically assuring that Boeing would be the ones who gained the contract because they were the only ones with an available option that met the designated timeline. It was the House of Representatives that, eventually, specified KC-767s be acquired, the number, and allocated the funds to acquire the aircraft.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense then leant their support to the leasing arrangement, as it met Secretary Rumsfeld's directive that all services find innovative means to quickly and using "transformational" methods expedite the procurement of new and critical military capabilities. The leasing arrangement met that intent, and was given the thumbs up.

Enter the Senate Armed Services Committee, who decided that the Air Force (?) had not followed proper military acquisitions laws, and that the leasing agreement was illegal, and moved swiftly to kill the legislation. The SASC then directed the Air Force to draft an RFP, which they did, to seek tenders, which they did, and to select a product...which they did. For those keeping score, the selected aircraft was, again, the KC-767, and a GAO review of the process determined that the bidding process was fair and equitable, and that the KC-767 met all the requirements.

Re-enter the SASC, which once again killed the legislation because they claimed the requirements in the RFP unfairly favored Boeing. Well naturally they did, since Boeing essentially defined the requirements by offering the KC-767 before the Air Force had identified requirements, and when they did finally write the RFP (at the Senate's insistence), the requirements--naturally--looked a lot like what Boeing had already thrown out. When the next round of this fiasco began, the Air Force was much more critical in writing the RFP, wrote an RFP that was approved by all parties as equitable, and managed the bidding and evaluation process (over 7,000 pages in each bid kids!) in strict accordance with the rules and with GAO oversight. They then selected the KC-30, much to Boeing's chagrin, because the Air Force gave undue weight in considering features and options that were not specified in the RFP.

Why, might you ask, did this occur? Well, because at the time, the House of Representatives had just slashed funding for all major military acquisitions programs to help pay for the war in Iraq. And, among the items that lost significant funding was the C-17. In slashing funding to the C-17, the House Armed Services Committee then instructed the Air Force that, based on reduced buys of the C-17, in evaluating its new tanker proposals, it should "give consideration to those platforms that might best serve in a variety of roles, to include those capable of meeting the strategic airlift shortfall." Not in the RFP, but given as guidance for consideration by the House.

Thus, Boeing, justifiably, felt that their proposal was shorted because it didn't get consideration for a requirement that was NEVER part of the RFP. The GAO agreed, and here we are on round 3...possibly 4, depending on whether you view the leasing attempt as a full up failed acquisition or merely part of the leadup.

Is the Air Force blameless in this process? Heck no. Google Darlene Druyun and that becomes patently fair.

Are virtually ALL the US military's service acquisitions programs currently plagued by significant problems and delays? Yes. Any doubts should be referred to the FCS, Comanche, DDG-1000, Seawolf, etc. Plenty of blame to go around there boys.

What's the best tanker for the Air Force? Probably whatever one we can get most quickly, that will keep all of the players in this acquisitions process happy. The real problem is not simply with Air Force acquisitions, it's with all the folks who have their hands in the acquisitions process....period.

Hardly just an Air Force problem.

[Collin]

Fix this problem with two words:

Tanker Blimps

[Fishwelding]

What's the best tanker for the Air Force? Probably whatever one we can get most quickly, that will keep all of the players in this acquisitions process happy. The real problem is not simply with Air Force acquisitions, it's with all the folks who have their hands in the acquisitions process....period.

A predictably complex, tortuous, multi-sided intersection of exclusive expectations and priorities, even if it could all happen in an afternoon. But it didn't all happen in an afternoon, so even more interesting is that the various expectations of various folks changed in the process. I can't decide if my favorite part is when Boeing submitted an unsolicited bid for taxpayer money (hilarious!) or when House Armed Services added the airlift expectations (more hilarious!).

Change the names of the players and priorities, and this kind of byzantine shenaniganry can stand in for a lot of big projects. Indeed, I commend you for getting so much into so short a post.

[Fishwelding]

Fix this problem with two words:

Tanker Blimps Zeppelins!

[Wayne S]

This may be considered narrow minded by some, but old fashion patriotism is also considered narrow minded by some now a days. The "equality and fairness" thing can only go so far. Putting a "support our troops" sticker on your car doesn't mean you are a patriot. I can keep going and going....

Curt

I know your just venting bud, But putting a sticker on your car to support the troops is "Patriotic"

If one wants to think Buying a Chevy and sticking a flag on it, is more Patriotic then buying a Japanese brand that has not asked for a cent and employs more people isn't, then good for them. I am one of the " Japanese" name brand owners my self but it is American made. I stopped buying GM when they moved jobs to Mexico.

-------------------

A330 isn't a KC-135 replacement in my book, thing is bigger then a KC-10

Sounds like the USAF is in charge now, but I highly doubt it.

I am all for who has the most parts count "Actual jobs, not one person making 1000 rivets" in the USA for getting the job. Saying that sometimes there are bigger fish to catch with companies.

Say the A330 had less parts count, but in return they put money into building plants and moving some of the A330 market to the USA. Would it then be worth it to buy from them if they invested more money to the working man? Yes in my book.

I don't get into the BIG company being in USA deal, That just means USA tax payers bail them out. Being Frank here, We would of been better off with GM HQ in China. Stock holders are stock holders, don't matter if the guy is in Japan, Germany or the USA.

Same with money accounts, money could be in off shore accounts even if the companies are American based.

[Grey Ghost 531]

Except we'd have 3 tankers then Storm. This buy is supposed to replace the -135s, NOT the -10s. Not sure that we have the money to logistically support a 3-tanker force. Heck, we don't have the money to support ANYTHING these days.

How hard/impractical would it be to contract out the phase type inspections and major repairs to guys that are already doing that on 767s and Airbuses in the civilian world? The day to day support and maintenance shouldn't stress the Air Force too much.

I don't care who wins as long as it's the one that best meets the requirements at a reasonable price.

[Murph]

How hard/impractical would it be to contract out the phase type inspections and major repairs to guys that are already doing that on 767s and Airbuses in the civilian world? The day to day support and maintenance shouldn't stress the Air Force too much.

I don't care who wins as long as it's the one that best meets the requirements at a reasonable price.

The main problem with having civilian maintenance on military aircraft is what happens when they go to war? By and large they're not real thrilled to learn what MOPP 4 is and good luck trying to give them anthrax shots. That's why only the AETC bases have civilian maintenance as the standard. In addition, a civilian worker is likely to be getting a higher rate of pay. That, of course, needs to be weighed against the other benefits a military member receives (which drives up their cost), but then again, any competent contractor is going to include the cost of health care for the workers, benefits, overtime, etc.... in their bid, balancing that out.

Regards,

Murph

[Waco]

Sounds like the USAF is in charge now, but I highly doubt it.

Not even close. The Air Force is going to be the one stuck holding this ugly baby as the "executive agent" this time around (again?), but they're far from "in charge." Need proof? Just a quick perusal of the attempts by Congress to introduce legislation barring NG/EADS from being able to compete based on the recent WTO findings. Note that it is forwarded from Congressmen in Kansas and Washington.

Gee, I wonder why?

Bottom line is, I'm quite certain the legislative branch is not going to contentedly sit back and let the Air Force run a tanker procurement program and patiently wait for the results.

[Fuji]

I know your just venting bud, But putting a sticker on your car to support the troops is "Patriotic"

If one wants to think Buying a Chevy and sticking a flag on it, is more Patriotic then buying a Japanese brand that has not asked for a cent and employs more people isn't, then good for them. I am one of the " Japanese" name brand owners my self but it is American made. I stopped buying GM when they moved jobs to Mexico.

-------------------

A330 isn't a KC-135 replacement in my book, thing is bigger then a KC-10

Sounds like the USAF is in charge now, but I highly doubt it.

I am all for who has the most parts count "Actual jobs, not one person making 1000 rivets" in the USA for getting the job. Saying that sometimes there are bigger fish to catch with companies.

Say the A330 had less parts count, but in return they put money into building plants and moving some of the A330 market to the USA. Would it then be worth it to buy from them if they invested more money to the working man? Yes in my book.

I don't get into the BIG company being in USA deal, That just means USA tax payers bail them out. Being Frank here, We would of been better off with GM HQ in China. Stock holders are stock holders, don't matter if the guy is in Japan, Germany or the USA.

Same with money accounts, money could be in off shore accounts even if the companies are American based.

You've got some great points there Wayne and I am in agreement. There are many foreign companies that operate here in the US and employ many US citizens. Nikon Cameras is one, they have offices all over the US and employ many of my friends. They have even hired me from time to time to talk at trade shows, Sun-N-Fun and I even assisted at last years Super Bowl. Many Japanese car companies like you said. The company may be Japanese but that car is pretty much American made employing Americans that otherwise would be out of work. They have much better business plans and practices than some "American" car companies that in my mind take advantage of those "Patriotic Americans" that buy American brands.

It takes a lot more than putting a "I support my troops" magnet on my car, you're right. But Old Fashioned Patriotism as Curt puts it is a bit blind at times. I think to be a Patriot, you need to be informed, well informed and be able to objectively decide what is best for our country and its people. If what's best for the country, its people and its servicemen and women is Airbus builds a factory here in the US to build the KC-30 airframes in conjunction with N-G, so be it. Boeing and some congressmen have said they do not want Airbus to get a foothold on US soil. That is xenophobic and isolationist. Mindsets that have always hurt more Americans than helped them.

Competition is a good thing in a capitalist economy right? That's what they always taught me in High School Economics. Many companies these days are looking to be monopolies which according to US and international laws is illegal, though we see it all the time when someone gets paid to turn a blind eye or implement protectionist laws. They circulate fear and dissent to sway public opinion and I hate to say its working on many broad fronts and topics.

I laugh when I hear people saying we have to get back to our roots, to being self reliant, because we never have been self reliant and we've never done anything on our own, even gaining our independence. The history we teach in our schools is so one sided that it just breeds arrogance that we can do anything just because we are Americans. Truth is we wouldn't be Americans without the help of the French, the Spanish and the Dutch. All three declared war on Great Britain when they saw how serious we were to defeating England. It was French training of Washington's Army that made it as effective as it was in the north. It was a Spanish plan to bottle up Cornwallis at Yorktown, to be blockaded from escape to the sea by the French fleet which was provisioned and paid for by private donations collected by the citizens of Cuba. Spanish, Dutch and French fleets and privateers harried British trade in their home waters keeping the pressure on close to home for the better part of two years AFTER Cornwallis surrendered thereby denying the British the ability to reengage their forces on the American continent. It always seems we forget to teach our kids those parts of our history. The United States of America didn't just happen cause we willed it to be, it was forged with blood sweat and tears of this and 3 other countries. To forget them is to do ourselves a disservice. To rule out a company for a US military contract just because the primary aircraft design is French is also to do ourselves and our service personnel a disservice. To hide behind"old Fashioned Patriotism" is not only doing ourselves a disservice but its also dangerous.

This nation did not come as far as it has by itself, it cannot go further by itself, especially in an ever shrinking world. I'm proud to be an American, proud and thankful of the opportunities this country has given my family, but I try to keep my eyes open to ALL possible solutions.

TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?

Sure...

Just Ask a Native American

Edited September 30, 2009 by Fuji

[Julien (UK)]

I for one am not to bothered who wins the battle to replace these tankers, I just want them to do it soon.

My brother is in the British Army and has relied on US airsupport in the past, and no doubt will in the future when he gets his turn for a Holiday with Club Stan.

Its no good with people on the ground or in the air waiting on a tanker that does not show up beacuse its old and knackered (taking nothing away from those guys who are no doubt working 25 hours a day keeping them in a fit state).

It seems to me like with most defense deals when the politicans get involved it goes **** up for want of a better expression.

I would also like to hear less Europe bashing. OK the Airbus aircraft is European designed but I gathered most would be built in the US.

Cheers,

Julien

[Jake]

Fix the cigarette lighter.

Jake

[CiscoKid]

[TaiidanTomcat]

Bottom line is, I'm quite certain the legislative branch is not going to contentedly sit back and let the Air Force run a tanker procurement program and patiently wait for the results.

Are you implying there maybe some kind of political interference?

Our Government just hemorrhages money, this will probably take years. we have already spent who knows how much money on 2 other rounds of this, I have no doubt that we will waste even more on this with little to show for the next two years. All in the interest of saving money of course... wouldn't want to waste billions picking the wrong one would we? so we waste billions picking the "right" one which will inevitably have teething issues that might delay and then destroy it anyway.

There are a lot of people right now who believe we can save a small fortune by withdrawing from various "foreign endeavors" and its stuff like this tanker struggle that assures me the money will be wasted just as well here in the good old USA.

If you think being a patriot is slapping a bumper sticker on your car, I feel bad for you. I mean we all know that beyond a tattoo the bumper sticker is the highest form of commitment.

[Fuji]

If you think being a patriot is slapping a bumper sticker on your car, I feel bad for you. I mean we all know that beyond a tattoo the bumper sticker is the highest form of commitment.

HA! I have a friend, his girl just got a tattoo of his name on her wrist. I laughed so hard. I asked him "Why did she do that? So she can remember your name while she services you?" That girl is dumber than a rock.

[Wayne S]

If you think being a patriot is slapping a bumper sticker on your car, I feel bad for you. I mean we all know that beyond a tattoo the bumper sticker is the highest form of commitment.

Whats your Idea of being a Patriot, Nationalism?

[F106A]

Boeing sure is trying hard to get it this time...

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/

Mark

[bradebaugh]

the purchase of new tankers isn't to replace the existing KC-135R models its to replace the E models that were retired. The Airbus can't get into all the airfields that the -135 and 767 can get into because of its size. having a mix would give an increase of airlift capability and still give other options.

Bruce

retired -135 pilot/current -135 sim instructor