11bee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I just have to ask if the Air Force can run any procurement project without it turning into a train wreck. At this point, I'm not sure that they could figure out a way to order a pizza without screwing up the process. Anyway, to read the latest in a long line of procurement blunders: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reverses-tucano-purchase-368892/ This seems to be similar to that wonderful KC-X tanker procurement. Does anyone at a high level in the AF review these decisions before they are finalized? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfgun33 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Wow. Guess they can't get it right. I was kinda surprised that the AT-6 was eliminated so quickly seeing how they have done a lot of development work. Who knows. I'm no expert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 All I can say is: Tweets n Tomcats! Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Given some of the people I knew in AFROTC who now wear stars on their shoulders, this isn't in the least surprising... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KursadA Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I was kinda surprised that the AT-6 was eliminated so quickly seeing how they have done a lot of development work. They were not the only team who had done a lot of work, the Sierra Nevada/Embraer proposal was a sound, proven design with a lot of additional work that went into it. This is simply pure politics: somebody in the command chain did not feel comfortable with a Brazilian-designed aircraft. Edited February 29, 2012 by KursadA Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 This is simply pure politics: somebody in the command chain did not feel comfortable with a Brazilian-designed aircraft. Maybe not, the procurement folks could just be completely incompetent. They have a solid track record of screwing up purchases of US-made equipment as well :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Av8fan Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Which aircraft is the best for the mission? I am sure that both have their strengths and weaknesses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 Which aircraft is the best for the mission? I am sure that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In theory, since the Tucano was the one originally selected, it would be the best. I'm not an expert on the two aircraft but they seem to be pretty evenly matched. Have no idea how they stack up cost-wise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koen L Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Which aircraft is the best for the mission? I am sure that both have their strengths and weaknesses. Hard to say as only the Super Tucano has seen actual 'combat'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 "That's procurement!" As my Uncle would say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 This wouldn't have happened if the Tucano had a false canopy painted on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I just have to ask if the Air Force can run any procurement project without it turning into a train wreck. At this point, I'm not sure that they could figure out a way to order a pizza without screwing up the process. Anyway, to read the latest in a long line of procurement blunders: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reverses-tucano-purchase-368892/ This seems to be similar to that wonderful KC-X tanker procurement. Does anyone at a high level in the AF review these decisions before they are finalized? To be honest, I can perfectly see why Hawker/Beechcraft protested the decision since the Air Force gave them no explaination as to why they lost the bid. As for combat, the AT-6 is a further development of the PC-7/9 that saw action as a light attack aircraft during the Iran-Iraq War, Chad used them against rebels based in Sudan, and Mexico used them against the Zapatistas in 1994. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 All irrelevant since the whole program was axed and now nobody gets paid (except for the contract termination fee for S-N) and a bunch of taxpayers get laid off. Any procurement program will have at least one issue if you were to dig deep enough....quite simply it's unavoidable to some degree and depends on the selection authority to grow a sack. Also, there's no repercussion to protesting/challenging a decision to the losing bidders if the protest is denied/lost, so this cycle isn't going to end anytime time soon. The neverending cycle that we've created is costing the gov't (which means us taxpayers) a butt-ton of money with each go around (I bet when the final price for KC-X/C-46 is over that's going to cost A LOT). We actually plan for at least one 90-day protest in program schedules now. My understanding from the rumor mill is that the Super Tucano was far and away the better platform. Spongebob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rick in Maine Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Dare I liken military procurement to Congress these days? Rick in Maine Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 All irrelevant since the whole program was axed and now nobody gets paid (except for the contract termination fee for S-N) and a bunch of taxpayers get laid off. Any procurement program will have at least one issue if you were to dig deep enough....quite simply it's unavoidable to some degree and depends on the selection authority to grow a sack. Also, there's no repercussion to protesting/challenging a decision to the losing bidders if the protest is denied/lost, so this cycle isn't going to end anytime time soon. The neverending cycle that we've created is costing the gov't (which means us taxpayers) a butt-ton of money with each go around (I bet when the final price for KC-X/C-46 is over that's going to cost A LOT). We actually plan for at least one 90-day protest in program schedules now. My understanding from the rumor mill is that the Super Tucano was far and away the better platform. Spongebob Absolutely, the level of litigation in the procurement process is becoming a serious issue. I think to some extent the ability to appeal is necessary... however there are several programs where it was used to overturn a good decision (the KC-X's second contract was a good case.) What you might find funny is that I actually think the US acquisitions model is not a terrible one, at least compared to others. There is a reasonable level of innovation in the field and it often arrives at decent outcomes most of the time. There is good research being done and academies for training officials. The system in Canada however is much worse. Our process for a protest is outdated and is open to abuse. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal process allows you to contest a decision you did not bid on. Furthermore the standards placed on bureaucrats are excessively high, which can have a paralyzing effect on their operations. I think its a major reason why the government has increasingly moved towards single source (whether intentionally or not.) Often contracts are written in a way that all but rules out all but winner, but this is still considered a "competition." It is a highly inefficient way to run the system and its produced some sub-optimal outcomes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Dare I liken military procurement to Congress these days? Rick in Maine More often than not with large projects they both go hand in hand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 lol, bet me to it fulcrum hopefully the Afghans get something, I do wonder how vulnerable these would be to sams or RPG even!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Skull Leader Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 lol, bet me to it fulcrum hopefully the Afghans get something, I do wonder how vulnerable these would be to sams or RPG even!? "It doesn't hurt if you don't get hit." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott R Wilson Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 To be honest, I can perfectly see why Hawker/Beechcraft protested the decision since the Air Force gave them no explaination as to why they lost the bid. Not true. Beech was eliminated because they failed to meet several deadlines for submitting their bid and supporting documentation. I don't have time to look up the particulars just now, but someone posted a good article in the Google group US Milaviation recently that told of Beech's missteps. Seemed Beech screwed up and now wants the rules "bent" so they can still win. Sounds like some of my wife's spoiled college students... Scott W. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 "It doesn't hurt if you don't get hit." I have great optimism for the afghan air force in that department Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 lol, bet me to it fulcrum hopefully the Afghans get something, I do wonder how vulnerable these would be to sams or RPG even!? I don't think RPG's are a problem. It's one thing to hit a Chinook in a hover, quite another to hit a small platform doing 300 knots. Plus, these are still going to be at reasonably high altitudes. SAM's are a different story but I'm sure that any aircraft deployed over there would have the standard defensive fit (Missile warning sensor and automatic flare dispensers). One of the real mysteries of this conflict has been the pretty much complete absence of modern IR SAMS. Given how reliant we are on helos, you would think any neighboring country that wanted to stir things up would be able to quite easily send in a few thousand modern SAMS which would truly be a game changer for us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) true, im sure they will try though :D I guess turboprops have less of a threat from SAMs, I just wonder about ZSUs etc (thinking post coalition astan) as for the absence of sams, it is an interesting question; I guess there is the risk it comes back to bite donor countries later, not just from the US but from their own rebel groups on-selling to other rebels. A ton were used up after the soviet left during the infighting, then battling the Taliban, plus a lot of ruined stockpiles. when it comes down to it an RPG is better money spent than a sam I guess! *not to mention all the EOD work that's been done too! in a post coalition astan its probable that weapons will flow again based on ethnic lines; Pushtuns get from Pakistan, Hazara from Iran, Tajik from Tajikistan, Uzbek, Uzbekistan and so on Edited March 1, 2012 by Raymond Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 may find this article interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook the unidentified rocket at the end is interesting; sa-2, 3 and 13 were used in astan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hawkeye's Hobbies Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 This is always a problem when you mix politics with the military. Doesn't matter if you are fighting a war or purchasing office supplies...if a politico gets wind of it they find it a necessity to get their nose into it and make the process harder than it has to be. The military once wasn't as political as it is now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Likely as far back as Throg and Krang making pointy sticks for their tribe, somebody interefered with the bidding process... Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.