Air Forces Out Sources Tankers!!! (NEW UPDATE)

[EastsideRedneck]

I understand that many of the items we buy or use on a daily basis are not made in the USA. Last I checked, my clothes and personal affects were not part of national security or purchased through a government procurement contract. I am probably most disheartened and upset about the fact that our government considered using a foreign interest that does not support our world view. If the English were building it I probably wouldn't be as pissed off.

As far as the money from clothes and other consumables, most of that money doesn't leave our shores anyway since the labor and materials are so darn cheap.

[A9]

I understand that many of the items we buy or use on a daily basis are not made in the USA. Last I checked, my clothes and personal affects were not part of national security or purchased through a government procurement contract. I am probably most disheartened and upset about the fact that our government considered using a foreign interest that does not support our world view. If the English were building it I probably wouldn't be as pissed off.

As far as the money from clothes and other consumables, most of that money doesn't leave our shores anyway since the labor and materials are so darn cheap.

Yea it's darn cheap but think about how many other jobs would kept in the US if they weren't outsourced to eastern asia shops...A fair amount of that money does go overseas. Those places are almost producing all the clothes for millions of Americans.

[EastsideRedneck]

Very true Sam. It is sad that we used to be one of the great producers of goods and now it seems we only provide services. The common cold seems to get more press than what really ails this great nation- apathy and our sense of entitlement. We want a lot of things, but we are not willing to sacrifice much to get them.

Just like small privately owned tackle shops, you may pay a little more for the same or similar product but you get better service and feel good about it afterwards. I look at this contract, and many other new trends in the global economy from this point of view. If a good or service can be produced locally/domestically for similar cost and quality, why look elsewhere?

[Lotech Joe]

This may be the straw but do you think that the " B " doesn't own murry and Dicks? You really think the Air Force main objective is $$$$$$? You know it's getting the best aircraft availible to carry out the mission for the next 30 years.
I know some of you think that I'm a commy pinko' because I see this issue a little differently. If you don't know by now that we are in a world economy. I will bet a dusty donut that you are looking at a monitor made in another country.
I drink Mexican Beer, Scotch Whiskey, my seafood comes from asia, I drive a forean car, I work for a company that will sell it's products to anyone that can aford it.
I am as greatful as anyone to be an American. I did my hitch in the air force taking care of the B52s, KC 135s
C 141s and C5A. I had freinds that did not come home and the ones of us that were lucky were called baby killers and spit on in the airports.
So keep the politics out of the military and let them carry out the mission given to them right or wrong.
You guys should be pissed at the " B " for not building what the Air Force was looking for and at the best Price.
Do your own thinking don't let someone else tell you what to think.
Bill

Bill,
While I agree with a lot you have to say, I think you could have found some different words to use. In your last paragraph you used the word p___ed and I think upset would have been a better choice. It is, after all, a family forum. I was born and raised in Washington and I love having Boeing here. I think our military should have the best tools for the task at hand. I also think that to outsource military tools to another country is just plain wrong. So, you see, I agree with a lot that both sides of this issue have to say. But this is a family forum and I think that appropriate language should prevail. When I came home from the Army in 1969, I remember the "Baby Killer" comments. I just considered the source and my anger subsided. I'm a Vet and your a Vet, so we are kindred brothers. Sugar wins more arguments than vinegar, so civility should alway win out. I guess what I'm trying to say is that friendly disagreement wins more arguments.
Peace Brother,

[A9]

Here's an interesting little article..This should stir the debate a little more...

Review: Air Force found Boeing tanker more capable
By KOMO Staff
ST. LOUIS, Mo. - The Pentagon awarded a $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the parent company of Airbus even though the Air Force's own evaluators found the Boeing Co.'s proposed aerial refueling tanker superior in at least two key areas, Boeing officials said Thursday.

A review of Pentagon files by The Boeing Co. revealed that Air Force evaluators found the Boeing KC-767 advanced tanker offered more mission capability and a better chance of surviving combat than the larger KC-30 tanker proposed by Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

The two aerospace firms were competing for the aerial tanker contract, which ultimately could be worth up to $100 billion over the coming years.

The Air Force's review also found that the Boeing's entry in the tanker competition had more strengths and fewer weaknesses overall than the Northrop-EADS tanker, Boeing officials found as part of their review.

“The fact that the Air Force gave Boeing the highest possible rating in mission capability and cited the KC-767 advanced tanker as having three times more strengths than the Northrop-EADS tanker in this most important category further highlights the inconsistencies in the selection process,” said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager for Boeing Tanker Programs.

“As for protecting flight crews on the most dangerous missions, the Air Force evaluated Boeing’s tanker as much more survivable than the Northrop-EADS tanker.”

The Air Force selected Northrop-EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing’s KC-767 on Feb. 29. On March 11, The Boeing Co. asked the Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included making unstated changes to the bid requirements during the competition.

“Despite the changes made in favor of the KC-30 in the area of mission capability, the evaluation was clear in its assessment,” McGraw said. “The Air Force identified 98 strengths and only one weakness with the KC-767, while they pinpointed 30 strengths and five weaknesses for the KC-30, including four weaknesses in aerial refueling.”

The Air Force evaluation gave Boeing high marks in aerial refueling. Evaluators cited the ability of the KC-767 to refuel the V-22 Osprey, which the KC-30 was evaluated as not being able to do.

Air Force evaluators also cited the KC-767’s better maneuverability while flying heavily loaded into a refueling zone, and they said its refueling flight deck displays and communications systems were better than the KC-30's. Evaluators also found three weaknesses in Northrop-EADS’ boom design and an additional weakness in their ability to be a receiver due to the lighting of their receptacle.

In contrast, the Air Force said the KC-767 met or exceeded all key performance parameters in the mission capability requirements evaluation. Among some of the other key strengths: aeromedical evacuation, enhanced navigation system, better use of airport ramp space, better cockpit displays and communications systems, and more likely to integrate into operational use faster with new equipment and future growth.

“Also of significant concern for us is the fact that the Air Force settled for a plane that is ultimately less survivable for flight crews performing their vital missions in war zones,” McGraw said. “In providing technology and features that can keep the airplane more survivable for the men and women flying them, the Air Force determined that the KC-30 is less survivable than the KC-767.”

The Air Force found that in the critical area of combat survivability, the Boeing tanker had nearly five times as many strengths as Northrop’s. The Air Force said Boeing’s strengths totaled 24 and gave just five for Northrop-EADS.

The GAO has denied motions filed by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the Air Force to toss key portions of Boeing's protest of a $35 billion aerial tanker contract, Northrop Grumman said late Wednesday.

The contract to build 179 aerial refueling tankers is the first of three Air Force contracts worth as much as $100 billion over 30 years to replace its fleet of nearly 600 tankers.


Story url below:


http://www.komotv.com/news/17266159.html

[kevinb]

Thanks for the article Sam.
This just got my blood pressure up....what is going on with our government?
We are nearing a resetion and they want to send jobs and money to France.
Disgusting,crazy and sad. I could say more and all of us can. But I need to keep this G rated.

[eustace]

In everything I have read about this situation it sounds to me like the Air Force adminastrative body doomed Boeing from the begining. In that Boeing was given specification requirments for this contract that differ from the so called met requirments of Airbus.

Keep this thread alive.

[Gisteppo]

Don't forget massive tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, namely corporations (yes, corporations are people too, in the eyes of this particular administration).

This is morally corrupt to say the least, and should infuriate every single American, regardless of their side of the aisle. Not one single representative should support this, nor senator, or president for that matter. To purchase a substandard aircraft at a comparable price while sacrificing the safety of those aboard is absurd. Sounds exactly like refusing to up-armor humvees for 3 years of the Iraq War, even though it showed an over 60% decrease in fatalities due to roadside bombings.

Lets be diligent about contacting our senators and reps on this issue. Patty Murray is fighting this one personally, and with some teeth. Keep in mind also that its not just Boeing thats involved. A squadron of said tankers lives right here in Spokane.

E

[kevinb]

Don't forget massive tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, namely corporations (yes, corporations are people too, in the eyes of this particular administration).

This is morally corrupt to say the least, and should infuriate every single American, regardless of their side of the aisle. Not one single representative should support this, nor senator, or president for that matter. To purchase a substandard aircraft at a comparable price while sacrificing the safety of those aboard is absurd. Sounds exactly like refusing to up-armor humvees for 3 years of the Iraq War, even though it showed an over 60% decrease in fatalities due to roadside bombings.

Lets be diligent about contacting our senators and reps on this issue. Patty Murray is fighting this one personally, and with some teeth. Keep in mind also that its not just Boeing thats involved. A squadron of said tankers lives right here in Spokane.

E

Well said.
Its one of those...If your not outraged,your not paying attention. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Marc Martyn]

Your preaching to the choir on this subject, Gisteppo. I agree 100%.

Here is a link were everyone can express their opinion. It is very easy to do. Type in your zip code and your representatives will pop up. Tell them what you think.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

[Marc Martyn]

Well I told Washington what I think about this matter and got back the following response. I thought I would share it with you:




Dear Mr. Martyn ,

Thank you for contacting me about the KC-135 Replacement Tanker Program. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

As you may know, the United States Air Force needs to replace its fleet of aging KC-135 aerial refueling tankers. Over the past year the Air Force has analyzed two bids, the Boeing KC-767 and the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30. I was extremely dismayed to learn the Air Force decided to award the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS on February 29, 2008. Like you, I strongly believe the Boeing KC-767 is the best plane for the Air Force, and I have serious concerns about the criteria used to award the contract to Airbus.

On March 25, 2008, I sent a letter, along with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), to David Walker, Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking for an investigation and a report to Congress on whether the Air Force is sufficiently considering lifecycle operating costs, the national security impact of the high cost of fuel, and the need to maintain critical skills vital to national security and a strong industrial base when making its procurement decisions. I am particularly concerned that the total cost to build, maintain, and operate the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30 over the entire course of its useful life (lifecycle costs) will exceed the costs of the Boeing KC-767. Fuel prices are at an all-time high, and the Air Force did not take fuel costs into account when comparing the KC-30, which uses more fuel, to the KC-767. In addition, the KC-30 is too large to use many runways and ramp space currently available to the Air Force's fleet. The Air Force also did not factor in the cost of expanding ramps and runways to accommodate the larger KC-30.

On April 17, 2008, I sent another letter, along with some of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, to President Bush, asking him to examine the trade implications of the contract being awarded to Northrop Grumman/EADS. In October 2004, the United States Trade Representative filed a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement case against the European Union regarding billions of dollars of unlawful subsidies provided to Airbus by European governments. This case is currently pending before the WTO. I am concerned that awarding one of the largest contracts in military history could undermine our efforts to end the European Union's illegal practice of subsidizing EADS.

Boeing filed an official protest with the GAO on March 11, 2008. I hope that the GAO and the Air Force will arrive at the conclusion that the Boeing KC-767, built by American workers in America , is indeed the best plane to serve our warfighters and our nation's needs. I am fighting to make sure this is the case.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington State . If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov . Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

[Marc Martyn]

The bid competition for the new Air Force Tanker is back to square one! Great News For Boeing:cheers:

http://murray.senate.gov/aeroupdates/update17.html

[Marc Martyn]

The bid competition for the new Air Force Tanker is back to square one! Great News For Boeing:cheers:

Newsletter From Senator Patty Murray

A Deep Breath, a Fresh Start and a Thank You

Dear Friend:

As many of you know, the Pentagon recently canceled the contract to purchase aerial refueling tankers and will begin a new competition once the next presidential administration takes office. This is welcome news for all of us who have worked so hard for a fair and transparent competition on behalf of America’s war fighters, taxpayers and workers.

The Pentagon’s announcement is a reality check on a contract process that had become muddled and complicated. It means that the next administration can begin with a fresh start and that the companies vying for this critical contract can compete on an even playing field. It also means that our efforts to oppose the flawed decision to award this contract to the foreign-owned company Airbus have been a success.

I want to thank you all for joining the fight to keep the Pentagon honest. By raising questions, speaking out for the American aerospace worker, and demanding oversight we have made it clear that a fair and transparent competition is the only path forward.

Like all of you, I want the best tankers for our war fighters as soon as possible. However, it’s clear that the only responsible way to do that is to step back, take a deep breath, and move forward with a fair competition that best serves our military’s needs.

In the next administration we will see new tankers. With your help, we will continue to ensure that the Pentagon delivers the right tanker. Thank you for lending your voice to this fight.

Sincerely,

Patty

[Marc Martyn]

The bid competition for the new Air Force Tanker is back to square one! Great News For Boeing:cheers:

Newsletter From Senator Patty Murray-

A Deep Breath, a Fresh Start and a Thank You

Dear Friend:

As many of you know, the Pentagon recently canceled the contract to purchase aerial refueling tankers and will begin a new competition once the next presidential administration takes office. This is welcome news for all of us who have worked so hard for a fair and transparent competition on behalf of America’s war fighters, taxpayers and workers.

The Pentagon’s announcement is a reality check on a contract process that had become muddled and complicated. It means that the next administration can begin with a fresh start and that the companies vying for this critical contract can compete on an even playing field. It also means that our efforts to oppose the flawed decision to award this contract to the foreign-owned company Airbus have been a success.

I want to thank you all for joining the fight to keep the Pentagon honest. By raising questions, speaking out for the American aerospace worker, and demanding oversight we have made it clear that a fair and transparent competition is the only path forward.

Like all of you, I want the best tankers for our war fighters as soon as possible. However, it’s clear that the only responsible way to do that is to step back, take a deep breath, and move forward with a fair competition that best serves our military’s needs.

In the next administration we will see new tankers. With your help, we will continue to ensure that the Pentagon delivers the right tanker. Thank you for lending your voice to this fight.

Sincerely,

Patty

[VHMLLC]

Marc Martyn for president!!!!! =d>





:viking: