Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyers' Old Joke
"When the facts go against you, stress the law; when the law is against you, emphasize the facts; when your case has both the law and the facts against it, call the other lawyer an a$$hole."
The facts are against you who have called me names.
The majority of airliners are leased, and leases are expiring every day. In addition are the bankruptcies, such as the MaxJet 767s that were parked in December.
The USAF could not handle a hundred tankers all at once, anyhow. The only requirement is that there be a potential fleet of suitable size, and semi-astute USAF buyers.
Ironically, the US longhaul carriers who run their planes until they go to the boneyard are the ones hauling USAF cargo and troops, and most all of those were bought well used.
The USAF always has money to buy new and shiny, but not enough for less expensive or less glamorous upgrades. When President Reagan was shot in 1981, VP Bush was reportedly riding in another of the Presidential fleet, a C-9A (mil. DC9-30). The only way they had to communicate with him was through the pilots. It took two more years before they upgraded the Comm systems on the C-9A fleet at Andrews AFB.
The T-43A is a fleet of 30-40 737-200 that were bought for pilot training in the 1970s. The USAF went cheap, and equipped them with only a single analog tuned ADF, which has no integrity monitoring, of course. As happens, the T-43A were pressed into executive service, and one of them crashed in 1993 on an ADF approach that involved two NDB, killing the US Secretary of Commerce and the rest on board.
Again, it's folly to buy on a 30-50 year payback plan. Ten years is a stretch. Every exta dollar spent by the US govt today is borrowed - mostly from Communist China. In the last several years we have gone from the largest financial power to the largest debtor nation in history. The only way we will recover is by restricting imports, which seems impossible, given the 10,000+ lobbyists in Washington.
GB
The facts are against you who have called me names.
The majority of airliners are leased, and leases are expiring every day. In addition are the bankruptcies, such as the MaxJet 767s that were parked in December.
The USAF could not handle a hundred tankers all at once, anyhow. The only requirement is that there be a potential fleet of suitable size, and semi-astute USAF buyers.
Ironically, the US longhaul carriers who run their planes until they go to the boneyard are the ones hauling USAF cargo and troops, and most all of those were bought well used.
The USAF always has money to buy new and shiny, but not enough for less expensive or less glamorous upgrades. When President Reagan was shot in 1981, VP Bush was reportedly riding in another of the Presidential fleet, a C-9A (mil. DC9-30). The only way they had to communicate with him was through the pilots. It took two more years before they upgraded the Comm systems on the C-9A fleet at Andrews AFB.
The T-43A is a fleet of 30-40 737-200 that were bought for pilot training in the 1970s. The USAF went cheap, and equipped them with only a single analog tuned ADF, which has no integrity monitoring, of course. As happens, the T-43A were pressed into executive service, and one of them crashed in 1993 on an ADF approach that involved two NDB, killing the US Secretary of Commerce and the rest on board.
Again, it's folly to buy on a 30-50 year payback plan. Ten years is a stretch. Every exta dollar spent by the US govt today is borrowed - mostly from Communist China. In the last several years we have gone from the largest financial power to the largest debtor nation in history. The only way we will recover is by restricting imports, which seems impossible, given the 10,000+ lobbyists in Washington.
GB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The majority of airliners are leased, and leases are expiring every day."
yes but they don't have a fortune spent on them converting them to the role
"The facts are against you who have called me names."
no they are not, ever wondered why your in a minority of one in this thread?
Do you honestly think any USAF general would spend a single red cent on the "truckie" fleet that he didn't have to, have you seen the cost of an A330 thats almost 2/3rds of an F22!
yes but they don't have a fortune spent on them converting them to the role
"The facts are against you who have called me names."
no they are not, ever wondered why your in a minority of one in this thread?
Do you honestly think any USAF general would spend a single red cent on the "truckie" fleet that he didn't have to, have you seen the cost of an A330 thats almost 2/3rds of an F22!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
GAO Declines To Throw Out Boeing Tanker Protest
The Government Accountability Office has denied requests from Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force to throw out Boeing's protest of a massive tanker contract award that went to Northrop and European partner EADS, according to Air Force and Northrop Grumman press releases issued late in the day April 2. GAO called the Air Force request to dismiss some parts of the protest "untimely," according to the release. "As a result, the Air Force better understands the protest issues."
Boeing is still fighting hard to have the decision overturned, filing a second supplemental to its original protest earlier this week.
In a statement, Northrop said that while GAO had not supported its effort to end the protest of the tanker deal, the company saw Boeing's supplemental filing as a net positive. "Boeing's decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications, in the statement. "We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman's selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO."
On the Boeing side of the fence, however, there was no sense of "streamlining," only a categorical denial that the protest had been narrowed in any way with information added earlier in the week. "We're not reducing anything," said tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale. "We're not eliminating anything."
Boeing has not yet spoken publicly about its most recent protest documents, but a statement is expected April 3.
GAO had not issued a statement on the Boeing supplemental or publicly announced denying the requests from Northrop and the Air Force as of Wednesday evening.
The Air Force announced Feb. 29 that it had picked Northrop Grumman and EADS to build up to 179 of the next-generation tankers. It was a stunning upset for Boeing, until now the sole supplier of air refueling planes to the U.S. military. Backlash was immediate from Congress and organized labor, who say the deal will cost U.S. jobs at a crucial time for the U.S. economy and that the requirements were changed in a way that favored the larger Airbus aircraft built by EADS.
Boeing filed a protest with the GAO March 11. By law, the GAO has 100 days to determine if Boeing's complaints have merit.
The Government Accountability Office has denied requests from Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force to throw out Boeing's protest of a massive tanker contract award that went to Northrop and European partner EADS, according to Air Force and Northrop Grumman press releases issued late in the day April 2. GAO called the Air Force request to dismiss some parts of the protest "untimely," according to the release. "As a result, the Air Force better understands the protest issues."
Boeing is still fighting hard to have the decision overturned, filing a second supplemental to its original protest earlier this week.
In a statement, Northrop said that while GAO had not supported its effort to end the protest of the tanker deal, the company saw Boeing's supplemental filing as a net positive. "Boeing's decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications, in the statement. "We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman's selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO."
On the Boeing side of the fence, however, there was no sense of "streamlining," only a categorical denial that the protest had been narrowed in any way with information added earlier in the week. "We're not reducing anything," said tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale. "We're not eliminating anything."
Boeing has not yet spoken publicly about its most recent protest documents, but a statement is expected April 3.
GAO had not issued a statement on the Boeing supplemental or publicly announced denying the requests from Northrop and the Air Force as of Wednesday evening.
The Air Force announced Feb. 29 that it had picked Northrop Grumman and EADS to build up to 179 of the next-generation tankers. It was a stunning upset for Boeing, until now the sole supplier of air refueling planes to the U.S. military. Backlash was immediate from Congress and organized labor, who say the deal will cost U.S. jobs at a crucial time for the U.S. economy and that the requirements were changed in a way that favored the larger Airbus aircraft built by EADS.
Boeing filed a protest with the GAO March 11. By law, the GAO has 100 days to determine if Boeing's complaints have merit.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Reuters: Air Force says Boeing protest too late
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five issues raised by Boeing Co in a protest against a $35 billion aircraft deal should be thrown out because they were improper or should have been raised before final bids were submitted, the U.S. Air Force said in documents obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.
The Air Force awarded the contract for 179 aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp and Airbus parent EADS on February 29. Boeing filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office on March 11. Boeing said the Air Force changed its requirements and the way it evaluated the competing bids in a way that favored the larger Northrop-Airbus aircraft. The Air Force decision also triggered howls of protests from Boeing supporters in Congress concerned the deal could shift business and jobs to Europe's Airbus, Boeing's chief rival for building commercial airplanes.
The Air Force and Northrop filed separate motions to dismiss parts of the Boeing protest on March 26, but the Air Force did not publicly release the details of its motion. A copy of the Air Force motion, which had some portions redacted, cited multiple grounds for the partial dismissal of the Boeing protest. It said the cost risk assigned to Boeing's proposal was its "own fault" and not due to any foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team.
Boeing has argued that it was penalized for offering a smaller aircraft when the Air Force really wanted a large airplane. But the Air Force said that claim was "legally baseless" and fell outside GAO's scope to evaluate.
"The Air Force has provided sufficient information to demonstrate the protest ground ... submitted by the Boeing Company are without legal and factual basis and untimely under GAO regulations," Air Force lawyers wrote in a letter that accompanied the motion. "Therefore, the protest ground identified above should be summarily dismissed to facilitate efficient resolution of the remaining protest issues," the Air Force said. The Air Force asked the GAO to rule on its motion before the service must respond in full to the protest on April 16.
Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton also defended the contract award before a House Armed Services subcommittee on Tuesday, telling lawmakers, "At no time were any datasets changed to try to skew or unlevel the playing field." She also rejected Boeing's claim that it did not know it could earn extra credit for beating the minimum requirements, and said the bidders were briefed at least three times about which of the 808 requirements they were getting credit for. "It was very clear that we had no requirement for size, large or medium. We did have requirements to meet capabilities and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold," she said.
The Air Force filing made the following points:
* The GAO should dismiss Boeing's contention that the Air Force changed requirements to favor the larger aircraft offered by its only competitor. "Boeing's protest about the size of the tanker selected is untimely because it seeks to change the Air Force's requirements or challenges the express terms of the solicitation that Boeing should have protested prior to the due date for the receipt of proposals," the Air Force said.
* Boeing's claim that the Air Force was unreasonable in how it evaluated aerial refueling was based on an "interpretation problem where Boeing is to blame," the Air Force said, noting that Boeing should have raised what it considered ambiguous language before it submitted its bid.
* Boeing's challenge about airlift capacity misstated the evaluation terms, the Air Force said. Boeing argued that the Air Force should have counted "points" but the Air Force said it had to qualitatively assess the competing strengths of each proposal since this was a "best value" competition.
* Boeing's challenge about a complex Air Force computer model used to assess the bids was also untimely, according to the document. The Air Force said it did not change model provisions after proposals were due, and Boeing knew in advance what "insights or observations" about its bid would be used to make the contract decision.
* Finally, the issue of foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team also should have been raised before bids were submitted, the Air Force said.
The document said Air Force officials clearly noted that Boeing had a higher cost/price risk when compared with Northrop. "Boeing's higher cost/price risk was due to Boeing's own fault and not due to any subsidies alleged enjoyed by (Northrop Grumman)," the Air Force said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five issues raised by Boeing Co in a protest against a $35 billion aircraft deal should be thrown out because they were improper or should have been raised before final bids were submitted, the U.S. Air Force said in documents obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.
The Air Force awarded the contract for 179 aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp and Airbus parent EADS on February 29. Boeing filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office on March 11. Boeing said the Air Force changed its requirements and the way it evaluated the competing bids in a way that favored the larger Northrop-Airbus aircraft. The Air Force decision also triggered howls of protests from Boeing supporters in Congress concerned the deal could shift business and jobs to Europe's Airbus, Boeing's chief rival for building commercial airplanes.
The Air Force and Northrop filed separate motions to dismiss parts of the Boeing protest on March 26, but the Air Force did not publicly release the details of its motion. A copy of the Air Force motion, which had some portions redacted, cited multiple grounds for the partial dismissal of the Boeing protest. It said the cost risk assigned to Boeing's proposal was its "own fault" and not due to any foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team.
Boeing has argued that it was penalized for offering a smaller aircraft when the Air Force really wanted a large airplane. But the Air Force said that claim was "legally baseless" and fell outside GAO's scope to evaluate.
"The Air Force has provided sufficient information to demonstrate the protest ground ... submitted by the Boeing Company are without legal and factual basis and untimely under GAO regulations," Air Force lawyers wrote in a letter that accompanied the motion. "Therefore, the protest ground identified above should be summarily dismissed to facilitate efficient resolution of the remaining protest issues," the Air Force said. The Air Force asked the GAO to rule on its motion before the service must respond in full to the protest on April 16.
Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton also defended the contract award before a House Armed Services subcommittee on Tuesday, telling lawmakers, "At no time were any datasets changed to try to skew or unlevel the playing field." She also rejected Boeing's claim that it did not know it could earn extra credit for beating the minimum requirements, and said the bidders were briefed at least three times about which of the 808 requirements they were getting credit for. "It was very clear that we had no requirement for size, large or medium. We did have requirements to meet capabilities and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold," she said.
The Air Force filing made the following points:
* The GAO should dismiss Boeing's contention that the Air Force changed requirements to favor the larger aircraft offered by its only competitor. "Boeing's protest about the size of the tanker selected is untimely because it seeks to change the Air Force's requirements or challenges the express terms of the solicitation that Boeing should have protested prior to the due date for the receipt of proposals," the Air Force said.
* Boeing's claim that the Air Force was unreasonable in how it evaluated aerial refueling was based on an "interpretation problem where Boeing is to blame," the Air Force said, noting that Boeing should have raised what it considered ambiguous language before it submitted its bid.
* Boeing's challenge about airlift capacity misstated the evaluation terms, the Air Force said. Boeing argued that the Air Force should have counted "points" but the Air Force said it had to qualitatively assess the competing strengths of each proposal since this was a "best value" competition.
* Boeing's challenge about a complex Air Force computer model used to assess the bids was also untimely, according to the document. The Air Force said it did not change model provisions after proposals were due, and Boeing knew in advance what "insights or observations" about its bid would be used to make the contract decision.
* Finally, the issue of foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team also should have been raised before bids were submitted, the Air Force said.
The document said Air Force officials clearly noted that Boeing had a higher cost/price risk when compared with Northrop. "Boeing's higher cost/price risk was due to Boeing's own fault and not due to any subsidies alleged enjoyed by (Northrop Grumman)," the Air Force said.
Boeing continues to fight back
Latest news release from Boeing
Impressive to note that they quote the distinguished ex-USAF Chief of Staff Gen Fogleman - although perhaps his impartiality might be called into question by the fact that he is also described as
airsound
Boeing KC-767 Tanker Determined More Survivable in U.S. Air Force Evaluation
ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.
The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor.
Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.
"When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."
On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for the competition.
During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767 outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767 achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11 described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were major.
Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:
More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems
Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.
Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.
ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.
The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor.
Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.
"When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."
On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for the competition.
During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767 outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767 achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11 described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were major.
Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:
More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems
Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.
Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.
consultant to Boeing's tanker effort
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why question Fogleman? He wasn't in the judging and his comments on that one issue to that specific group seem to be accurate so why question his integrity? Being paid by Boeing doesn't change any of that, does it?
In the interest of full disclosure, Fogleman was the only USAF Chief of Staff that I had any respect for. He immediately undid some of the stupidity of his predecessor (he whose name must not be mentioned by any of the USAF, ptooey....) regarding changing the uniform back to something approaching (but not quite there) military attire vice a ready to wear Delta Airlines or RAF-lite wannabe. A minor thing in the scheme of things, but immensely hated at the time, he corrected that.
On a larger level, he is one of a few senior officers to resign when his views conflicted with the views of his political masters. He didn't hang on, he didn't leave with great fanfare, just a short farewell in which he, paraphrasing, stated that if his views couldn't be matched with his boss, it was time to go. So he went.
The topic was where the blame for the Khobar Towers bombing lay and who was hung out to dry.
In the interest of full disclosure, Fogleman was the only USAF Chief of Staff that I had any respect for. He immediately undid some of the stupidity of his predecessor (he whose name must not be mentioned by any of the USAF, ptooey....) regarding changing the uniform back to something approaching (but not quite there) military attire vice a ready to wear Delta Airlines or RAF-lite wannabe. A minor thing in the scheme of things, but immensely hated at the time, he corrected that.
On a larger level, he is one of a few senior officers to resign when his views conflicted with the views of his political masters. He didn't hang on, he didn't leave with great fanfare, just a short farewell in which he, paraphrasing, stated that if his views couldn't be matched with his boss, it was time to go. So he went.
The topic was where the blame for the Khobar Towers bombing lay and who was hung out to dry.
Why question Fogleman?
airsound
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/spher...ue&view=sphere
http://www.reuters.com/article/spher...ue&view=sphere
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A retired Air Force general resigned on Tuesday as chairman of the nonprofit Airlift/Tanker Association over a perceived conflict of interest due to his work as a consultant for Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
Boeing is protesting the February award of a $35 billion Air Force program for 179 new aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and its European subcontractor EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research).
Retired Air Force Gen. Ron Fogleman's resignation came after he gave a speech earlier on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, praising the superiority of the Boeing 767 aerial tanker. The speech was at a lunch sponsored by Boeing at the annual convention of a separate group, the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group.
"He resigned because there was a perceived conflict of interest and he wanted to keep the organization out of it," said one of the sources, who asked not to be named.
An assistant to Fogleman said he was traveling and could not be reached for immediate comment.
Boeing, Northrop and EADS are all members of the Airlift/Tanker Association, which includes civilians and military personnel.
The association's Web site describes the group as "providing a forum for ensuring American military forces continue to have the air mobility capability required to implement U.S. national security strategy."
Fogleman has been a consultant to Boeing for years. His name appeared on various documents that emerged during an earlier $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers, which was scrapped amid a major procurement scandal.
Boeing officials had no immediate comment.
Mark Smith, president of the Airlift/Tanker Association, confirmed in a statement that Fogleman had resigned, effective immediately, after four years as the group's chairman.
"Gen. Fogleman made his decision to resign as chairman to have greater freedom of action regarding current issues in the national defense commercial arena," Smith said .
The Airlift/Tanker Association's latest quarterly magazine featured an article about the Air Force project to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers.
Fogleman retired from the Air Force in 1997 after 34 years with the service. His last job with the Air Force was as chief of staff.
Smith said retired Air Force Gen. Walt Kross had been appointed acting chairman of the Airlift/Tanker Association until formal elections at the group's convention in November. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A retired Air Force general resigned on Tuesday as chairman of the nonprofit Airlift/Tanker Association over a perceived conflict of interest due to his work as a consultant for Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
Boeing is protesting the February award of a $35 billion Air Force program for 179 new aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and its European subcontractor EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research).
Retired Air Force Gen. Ron Fogleman's resignation came after he gave a speech earlier on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, praising the superiority of the Boeing 767 aerial tanker. The speech was at a lunch sponsored by Boeing at the annual convention of a separate group, the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group.
"He resigned because there was a perceived conflict of interest and he wanted to keep the organization out of it," said one of the sources, who asked not to be named.
An assistant to Fogleman said he was traveling and could not be reached for immediate comment.
Boeing, Northrop and EADS are all members of the Airlift/Tanker Association, which includes civilians and military personnel.
The association's Web site describes the group as "providing a forum for ensuring American military forces continue to have the air mobility capability required to implement U.S. national security strategy."
Fogleman has been a consultant to Boeing for years. His name appeared on various documents that emerged during an earlier $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers, which was scrapped amid a major procurement scandal.
Boeing officials had no immediate comment.
Mark Smith, president of the Airlift/Tanker Association, confirmed in a statement that Fogleman had resigned, effective immediately, after four years as the group's chairman.
"Gen. Fogleman made his decision to resign as chairman to have greater freedom of action regarding current issues in the national defense commercial arena," Smith said .
The Airlift/Tanker Association's latest quarterly magazine featured an article about the Air Force project to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers.
Fogleman retired from the Air Force in 1997 after 34 years with the service. His last job with the Air Force was as chief of staff.
Smith said retired Air Force Gen. Walt Kross had been appointed acting chairman of the Airlift/Tanker Association until formal elections at the group's convention in November. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
Thanks for that D-IFF.
It couldn’t be, could it, that the esteemed General reads PPRuNe? Nah, too much....
Whatever, I look forward to his revisiting the UK soon and having a chat with some of his erstwhile UK peers about how the honourable course for an officer who perceives a serious conflict of interest is resignation.
airsound
It couldn’t be, could it, that the esteemed General reads PPRuNe? Nah, too much....
Whatever, I look forward to his revisiting the UK soon and having a chat with some of his erstwhile UK peers about how the honourable course for an officer who perceives a serious conflict of interest is resignation.
airsound
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick, I am wondering how much importance can be placed on the points the general has raised.
Do you have any idea of how many tankers in the USAF have been attacked ?
Do you have any idea of how many tankers in the USAF have been attacked ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
henry, no, I don't.
Again, regarding Fogleman's comments, it seems he was accurate in the ratings given on survivability. As he is a Boeing advocate, I would be surprised if he spoke about areas where his choice lost.
Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with his choice or the winning choice of tanker. I am not qualified to judge.
I was/am/will be surprised if EADS-produced hardware actually makes it to various tanker bases in the next 10 years, but hope I'm wrong and the USAF gets something better than the venerable, but decidely long in the tooth, KC-135s.
Again, regarding Fogleman's comments, it seems he was accurate in the ratings given on survivability. As he is a Boeing advocate, I would be surprised if he spoke about areas where his choice lost.
Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with his choice or the winning choice of tanker. I am not qualified to judge.
I was/am/will be surprised if EADS-produced hardware actually makes it to various tanker bases in the next 10 years, but hope I'm wrong and the USAF gets something better than the venerable, but decidely long in the tooth, KC-135s.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it might be unusual for a tanker to encounter a SAM, it might be somewhat more usual for a transport, so unless the KC-45 tanker-transport is restricted to doing runs to places like Turkey and the Gulf States with C-130/C-17 taking the cargo the last few yards it's not an insignificant issue.
Reading an article in Flight International about the latest delays to Boeing's 7-late-7, I came across the following interesting statement:
So at least some folk at Boeing seem to have accepted that their KC-767A is a dead duck for the USAF. Mind you, trying to persuade people waiting for the 7-late-7 that they should buy the 767-300ER instead seems somewhat optimistic to me....
One industry source told Flight International that these fears have already resulted in widebody values being "artificially high". As Boeing looks at ways of bridging the capacity shortfall, sources say that one option being examined is to redirect the 767 production planned for its now defunct KC-X tanker bid towards the passenger market.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PORK?
It would seem that, predictably, this fight is not yet over -
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...35721020080523
I once read that in the US the way to ensure that a piece of military equipment enter service is for parts to be made in all 50 states...
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...35721020080523
I once read that in the US the way to ensure that a piece of military equipment enter service is for parts to be made in all 50 states...
[OFF TOPIC]
God how I wish that our government were that generous!!! £4.5B might, just about, meet the "bow wave" in the EP.
[/OFF TOPIC]
including the addition of more than $9 billion in funding for weapons not requested by the Pentagon.
[/OFF TOPIC]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not so fast
From a GAO report released today:
"We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations."
-sent to me without the link to the full report----
"We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations."
-sent to me without the link to the full report----
Last edited by brickhistory; 18th Jun 2008 at 18:55. Reason: cannot confirm the veracity of the quote
Meanwhile, whilst Boeing still cannot their $hit in the right sock for a handful of Italian AF 767 tankers (which are far from the KC-767 spec), the A310MRTT and CC150T go from strength to strength. A310MRTT has more than met its design spec targets - those living on the west coast of the US can watch an A310 trailing fast jets from Eilsen to Holloman in the next few days, for example....
The RAAF's KC-30B program also goes well - and yet another prospective A330 tanker customer has recently been on a fact-finding mission.
Boeing, your Frankentanker is totally outclassed in every respect. Time to stop moaning, dry your eyes and concentrate your efforts on trying to get your 7-late-7 fit for flight, I would suggest!
The RAAF's KC-30B program also goes well - and yet another prospective A330 tanker customer has recently been on a fact-finding mission.
Boeing, your Frankentanker is totally outclassed in every respect. Time to stop moaning, dry your eyes and concentrate your efforts on trying to get your 7-late-7 fit for flight, I would suggest!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't understand the "capability" argument in favor of the EADS aircraft. Everyone knows 747s and A380s are more capable than 737s or A320s, so why does anyone bother to buy a 737 or an A320?
Boeing has won the first round.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267
Boeing has won the first round.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts