Boeing's tanker tantrum

Forget all the patriotic home territory rubbish & jobs for yanks, face the fact that Airbus/EAD Tanker is the first choice for the AF. All five recent international tanker competition are won by Airbus with Boeing zero, why? The 767 is gasping for breath, so much so they are retro fitting winglets to it to improve fuel performance, do we want our AF to have obsolete equipement?

Wilber Wrong @ 10:08 AM PDT, Jul 25, 2008

Cap, Do you think Boeing might have been praising the AF because it didn’t know about many of the facts brought out in the GAO report? You are probably right about the AF getting the EADS product as Mr. John Young was completely behind the first corrupt decision, (Based on his congressional testimony) so he will probably be tasked in cleaning up the mess, hiding all the peripherals that will skyrocket the cost of using the A330 for this mission, saving face for the Defense Department and bamboozling the American People into buying a short term solution for a long term need.

M @ 8:43 AM PDT, Jul 25, 2008

Brian Keeper, Welcome to the USA and we appreciate your opinions even though they don’t seem to be based on facts. BTW, How much exactly do you still have tied up in EADS stock?

M @ 8:31 AM PDT, Jul 25, 2008

HH do you know how the Government buys things? If not here you are. A government team decides they want something and draft paperwork stating EVERYTHING they want in and out of the product. They solicit bids from people and choose (Usually) the best valued bid. In this case as the GAO points out, they changed the bid in the middle of the process to assist the NG/EADS in getting the contract. Don’t listen to any of us, we all have “our perceptions” and favorites. Read the GAO’s white paper and come to a decision yourself. The facts will set you free!

M @ 8:17 AM PDT, Jul 25, 2008

Airbus has manufactured six tankers ever. Since 1950 Boeing has built ONLY 2000 Tankers. Boeing makes a plane that will last 50 years, the European cheesy design will last 25 years, and is not as safe to the crews that fly them. SHAME ON YOU GENERAL. Are you and George sucking up to the Queen for a Knighthood? Submitted by Longer Time Pilot of Many More Aircraft and in this time of a cruddy American .recession, I want Jobs for Americans.

Jon @ 11:15 PM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

This implication of this article is "NG's paid retired generals are wiser, smarter, better looking, more heroic, whatever, than Boeing's, so NG's should be believed when dispensing advice on which plane to buy". There are only two real issues: 1)The integrity of the selection process. 2)The wisdom of eroding the domestic defense manufacturing infrastructure by outsourcing major weapons systems to nations of uncertain reliability. Blending anything else into the debate only sows confusion.

Hindu Stan @ 9:32 PM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

While I myself am going into the Air Force, I believe they may have made an error. Even the top Air Force minds are human and capable of making mistakes. Either that or us Boeing supporters are mistaken. I do know that Boeing has been been supplying systems and equipment to our military for over 90 years. Some of the Air Force's best equipment was and is produced by Boeing, (including the programs they took over when they bought McDonald Douglas). Boeing has built planes for the Air Force since it first built Model C's for them back in 1917.

cadet @ 9:09 PM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

At ease, Cap! It's not a question about who knows best what the Air Force needs. It's a question of whether egregious irregularities skewed the choosing process. The GAO findings closed off that debate. When you attribute wisdom to the Air Force (or any large organization), you need to remember that there are many countervailing points of view, interests, and pressures. The desires of the procurement bureaucracy are not necessarily congruent with the interests of operational types. The bypassing of normal channels on the re-bid suggests an ongoing lack of confidence in the procurement office.

Hindu Stan @ 8:26 PM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

The key to understanding General Horner's one-sided comments is "He consults for a number of defense firms, including Northrop Grumman." The GAO called the flaws in the Air Forces Bidding Procedure "significant", significant enough to require re-bidding. Northrup-Grummon's latest ads call their aircraft "Ready Now.", while Boeing's craft exists only on paper. The Northrup/Airbus plane can only be "Ready Now" if built entirely in Europe, as the Alabama plant hasn't been built yet, and the military portion of the plane has to be built in the U.S. Boeing has already DELIVERED two KC-767's to Japan. Which plane is "Ready Now".

Michael Gross @ 5:40 PM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

Dan: So guess you know more about procuring tankers than the United States Air Force? Don't you think maybe that the USAF considered everything you (and other pro-Boeing posters)have brought up (well, the stuff that was true, anyway)? It is amusing when posters bring up these points like the USAF doesn't know, and it is their job to inform them. Maybe you have all forgotten, while simmering in your sour grapes, that Boeing repeatedly praised the job the USAF was doing... until they lost. When this is over, the NG tanker will be chosen again. What the US military wants, they usually get. They deserve nothing less than the best (NG).

Cap @ 10:30 AM PDT, Jul 24, 2008

Next