Pentagon: Tanker bids differed by $3 billion
 

"A new competition will give EADS more time to develop an off the shelf product for the USAF."

You need money for that and the black holes of A400M, A350 and A380 are sucking EADS dry.

Seattlepi: Aerospace Notebook: How about splitting the tanker award?

With the Air Force tanker competition in limbo until after a new president and his administration takes over in January, a proposal by a powerful member of Congress that the Pentagon buy tankers from both The Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. has received a tentative nod from an unlikely corner.

"If they go to a dual award, which would mean not splitting the award but actually ordering one a month from each company, obviously we would look at that and be supportive of whatever the government wants to do," Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said Tuesday in an interview with Reuters. "Anything that gets good tankers to our airmen fast is probably a good thing," he added.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House defense appropriations subcommittee, has proposed buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop.

Boeing said it is not taking a position on a dual-buy option. "We look forward to a reopening of the competition to identify the right tanker to modernize its fleet of medium-sized tankers," a Boeing spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.

Although a split buy and a dual buy may not be the same thing, either would probably mean added costs to the Air Force because it would have to support different planes. And that's something that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said is not acceptable. Gates recently said he would recommend a presidential veto of any legislation out of Congress to split the tanker buy. Of course, Gates may not be the defense secretary for long once John McCain or Barack Obama becomes president in January.

The dual-buy option is getting more attention because of Murtha, whose appropriations subcommittee chairmanship gives him a lot of power over military spending.

Last week, Murtha disclosed that he had inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 defense appropriations bill that directs the Pentagon to study the feasibility of buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop. Murtha said he wants to know, among other things, what the increased costs might be. But a dual buy is the only way to get tankers to the Air Force anytime soon, Murtha said, given that another protest is likely by the loser of the next competition, which will further delay the tanker acquisition process.

"What we said was 'Look at a dual buy,' " Murtha said at a news conference. "Now, Boeing doesn't like that and I don't know if Northrop likes that. The Defense Department definitely doesn't like that. But let me tell you something, we are not going to have tankers if we don't do that, I'm convinced."

Because the Airbus A330-based tanker offered by Northrop and its partner, EADS, the parent of Airbus, is ready to enter production, and Boeing's 767-based tanker for the Air Force is not, a dual buy likely would mean that Northrop would supply most of the early tankers to the Air Force, depending on when the first deliveries were scheduled.

The Air Force wants 179 tankers as it seeks to eventually replace its aging fleet of some 500 Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers.

Northrop and EADS won the hotly disputed tanker competition earlier this year, but Boeing appealed, and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the Air Force made serious mistakes and ordered a rebidding. But Boeing threatened to withdraw from the competition if it did not have at least six months to offer a bigger tanker to meet new requirements set by the Pentagon, which hoped to award a tanker contract by the end of the year. So earlier this month Gates announced that the much-delayed tanker decision will be left to the next administration because there is not enough time while George Bush is president to conduct a fair competition.

Meanwhile, Boeing is taking the next few months to evaluate which of its jets might have the best shot at winning the $35 billion Air Force tanker competition. Boeing's 767-200 tanker that it offered is considerably smaller than the A330.

The possibility of a dual buy raises many questions, not the least of which is, would the Pentagon, should it agree to buy two different planes, still press ahead with a new tanker competition? Would Congress go along with a dual buy if it meant the tanker deal would cost more?

Regardless of the talk about a dual buy, the presidential race is likely to shape the tanker outcome. If Obama wins, he is seen as being more supportive of the Pentagon buying Boeing's plane.

Even though Northrop's Sugar said in the Reuters interview he could support buying tankers from both companies, if that's what the new administration wants, he also said Northrop is prepared to compete against Boeing again ... and again ... and again ... for the tanker contract. "We are going to do that as many times as it takes," he was quoted as saying.

Murtha Wants Speedy Mixed Air Force Tanker Buy

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told a conference in Washington on March 12 that he is in talks with House and Senate Appropriations panel leaders to increase supplemental defense funding to finally end the decade-long KC-135 replacement effort.

His idea, floated during a conference at the National Press Club sponsored by Aviation Week and McAleese & Associates, is to inflate the $67 billion supplemental request the Obama administration will send to Congress in coming weeks with funds tagged for the competition and "development work" on each team's planes. By putting the funds in the second 2009 supplemental, the Air Force would "get the planes sooner" than if appropriators waited to put the monies in the 2010 defense budget, due to Congress late in April.

Murtha's plan, if included in the final version of the supplemental, would add a new twist to the tanker saga by requiring the Air Force to buy some number of both planes. Boeing and Northrop-EADS still would compete under the Murtha plan, but not for the entire 179-plane, $35 billion contract. Whichever team the service deems "put forward the best proposal would get more" of the 179-plane pie, he said, and the other team would get a lesser number. That differs from talk of a "split buy," under which the Air Force would buy an equal number from each team.

Senior Air Force and Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, oppose buying both planes under the KC-135 replacement program because they say sustainment and maintenance costs would be too high.

Asked by Defense News whether a mixed buy would keep the team awarded fewer KC-X tankers from protesting the decision, a move that could again delay the program by years, Murtha said lawmakers were still working through details of his plan. "We hope we can work it out," Murtha said.

Asked whether a mixed or split buy would satisfy Boeing brass, Murtha grinned and replied: "Boeing will do what we ask them to do. They will be happy to get a tanker. ... Boeing has put a lot of money into this."

His comments came almost 24 hours after Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, House Armed Services air and land subcommittee chairman, told the same conference he supports splitting the contract between Boeing and Northrop-EADS. Abercrombie told reporters that because the Boeing and Northrop-EADS planes have different attributes, the Air Force could simply operate them in different regions of the globe.

Murtha and Abercrombie shot down a March 10 CQ Politics article that the White House Office of Management and Budget had ordered the Pentagon to delay the KC-X competition by five years to cut costs as part of the soon-to-conclude 2010 defense budget deliberations. "That is just not true," a stern-sounding Murtha told the conference.

Defense News: Boeing Pitches 777 Tanker; Labels New USAF Bid 7A7

PARIS - Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.

Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) president and CEO Jim Albaugh said he expected to see a request for proposals (RFP) this summer for the new U.S. Air Force tanker competition. "I expect it will not have nearly as many requirements as the last one," he said.

Boeing lost out on the last hotly competed tanker contest to a joint bid by Northrop Grumman and EADS that was based on the Airbus A330 airframe. But Boeing protested that contest, and the following Government Accountability Office report lambasted the Air Force for how it ran the contest. As a result, the order was cancelled and a new competition is being run between the rival manufacturers.

Albaugh said that Boeing would decide which aircraft to bid once it had seen the RFP. Meanwhile, it has renamed its tanker program the KC-7A7. Asked what the 'A' stood for, he was vague, but said that if the media wanted to pick a word, they could use "advanced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

However, when this was discussed as an option, rather than the KC-767, for the KC-45 contract; the following points were made.

.....But there are serious issues for Boeing should it offer the 777 as a tanker. Its 777 production line in Everett is flush with commercial orders. Where could it find production slots to build 179 tankers for the Air Force? On the other hand, the 767 commercial program is winding down because that plane is being replaced by the 787.

Also, Boeing faces a time problem in developing either the 777 or the 767-400 as tankers. But it has already developed the 767-200 as a tanker for Italy and Japan, even though those planes are late. Northrop has repeatedly made the case in ads touting its plane over Boeing's 767-200 that the A330-200 tanker is already flying – and that the advanced 767-200 tanker for the Air Force is still a "paper" plane. The version of the 767-200 for the Air Force would be different than the eight tankers built for Italy and Japan.

Boeing said in 2006 that it would take about three years to modify the 777 into a tanker......

So, what, if anything has changed? And is the USAF in a position to accept a further 3-4 year delay in the programme?

Sounds to me like even Boeing doesn't want to go through with this charade.

Its all down the Senators and Congressmen now...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...rnet/zxzxz.jpg

So, Boeing are saying that they can't identify which of their aircraft might better meet the specification? That's one reason why Airbus lost to the 767 for the Italian Air Force - the customer was expected to choose which of the proposed Airbus solutions would meet the specification. To which the customer repsonded "Well, if they haven't bothered to identify the better solution, they obviously aren't taking us seriously...."

3 years to develop a 777 tanker? Who would ever believe that, given that Boeing still hasn't flown a KC-767A, only warmed-over 767-200s for the JSDF and, perhaps one day, the Italian AF. And as for the 7-late-7 airliner...:hmm:

And what does the 'A' stand for in 'KC-7A7? ARSE!! The Boeing KC-7arse7!

Meanwhile the A330MRTT continues to develop well for both the KC-30A and FSTA programmes (the first 'FSTA' flew last week) and the A310MRTT is in service with both customers....

Boeing *ankers
 

In view of their desperation to have something to offer, I submit 7any7.

Of course, they haven't received the new RFP yet
 

Might explain some of their unknowns relative to which aircraft to use.
If the USAF uses similar a similar L&M as last time then the 777 makes sense. If the USAF learns from their numerous errors, perhaps the original 767 would be a better proposal.

I wouldn't hold my breath if the same mid-level managers are still part of the source selection team ...:mad:

...and
 

It looks like someone find peace in this KC767 drama:



Lawmakers claim Boeing victory in ruling - TheHill.com

... and continue
 

... and an interesting article after that!

Boeing officials on how WTO ruling should impact tanker

Boeing are only making such a noise about this WTO issue because their product is manifestly inferior to the A330 and cannot sell itself on its own merit alone.

Getting rather long in the tooth now, the old 767.

Yep
 

Beagle

you are probably right, but reading the KC30 MRTT thread they don't look happy either! Problem here and there, late delivery and so on!

So what is going on in the AAR world?
It looks like nobody is really interested in solving the problems!


Report: Defense expert favors split tanker buy

SeattlePi: Air Force reportedly won't consider WTO ruling in tanker bid

The U.S. Air Force will not factor a recent World Trade Organization ruling into its bid process for new aerial refueling tankers, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Monday, according to a Reuters report.

Politicians from states, such as Washington, with a large Boeing presence have said the Pentagon should penalize a Northrop-EADS tanker bid based on this month's WTO interim ruling that European governments illegally aided Airbus, an EADS subsidiary.

But Donley noted that the ruling was preliminary and that a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing was still pending. These are among the points that EADS, Northrop and its congressional allies have been making.

"Times change" said the Roman
 

"...and we are changed with them", he finished.
Economic prognosticators are saying that there are huge cancellations pending for the aircraft makers as the downturn goes on biting. So the crowded order books for both will perhaps be about to look desperately empty (again ... "it's one of them cycle things, yer know" ...). So the A330 won't necessarily be facing off against the 767 which is already as good as out of production, but the 777 which could be in dire need of firm orders from a friendly government.
Expect loud acrimony about the WTO "decision" from both sides of the "pond" and not a cool head to talk facts - Europe's way of financing Airbus projects in the past, and in the future, will be given the smoke & mirrors treatment, while few in Europe will be as strong about the shifty ways of the American industry and its very strong desire to be Master of the World ...
That said, both Boeing and Airbus may feel in private, a need to pull their punches, as in a while they may need WTO backing to make life difficult for arising competition from Brazil and China, as well as, perhaps, Russia. Now that will be a cat-fight to end all cat-fights - fine for old war-horses like me who scent the smoke of battles to come ...
"Tempora mutantur" indeed.
:cool:

IDS vs EADS or IDS+EADS
 

Why they take so long to deliver planes?
A330 is already flying for more then 15 years and the B767 is even worse (more then 25)? Is that the KC version of the civilian platform is a complete different airplane? If that's so, why being worried about the facing off the civilian plane since the KC (military) version will have his own dedicated time line, maintenance cycle and spare parts (especially if we are dealing with big organizations like USAF, RAF, RAAF, US Navy)?

As I said it looks like nobody is really willing to solve problems but to show how good they are using words instead! WTF

Don't forget AF447 (recent A330 crash)
 

Let's not forget the rather recent Air France Fl 447 crash in the Atlantic Ocean... many unanswered questions related to instrumentation (pitots), air data computers, too much automation, possible pilot error (flying into known CB), or combination of contributing factors that negatively affected the flight that dark, stormy night.

The unknown contributing factors should certainly be considered with respect to the tanker competition (as they relate to the airframe anyway). At the very least, delay the decision until the final report is published.

Too bad that the Pentagon and AF acquisition officers won't even consider a short-term alternative...

DC-10 conversion to KC-10 utilizing mothballed and/or retired DC-10 aircraft. Heckuva lot cheaper than buying new, and the AF has experience with the KC-10 already. Probably pick up 180 or more fully retrofitted (and refitted with latest avionics, engines, etc.,) for less than $30 million each for a total of $5.4 billion.

Famous Last Words....... :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Schwartz Promises 'Foolproof' Tanker Solicitation

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz vowed Sept. 15 the draft solicitation the Pentagon will release this month seeking bids for a multibillion-dollar tanker aircraft contract will be "foolproof."

Air Force and industry officials during the first two days of the conference have thrown around various timetables for when the Defense Department will release a draft version of a request for proposals. Those vary from next week to the end of this month.

Boeing and a team of EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to again compete for the contract.

As the crescendo for the service's latest try at replacing its aging KC-135 tankers grows, Schwartz was asked about rumors in defense circles that protests could be filed even before bids are submitted if the competitors feel shortchanged by the coming solicitations.

Schwartz asked with a grin: "Do you think we'd put an RfP on the street that isn't foolproof?"

Meanwhile the UAE have theirs sorted,
UAE air force A330 tankers to have Etihad passenger cabin

Whereas the dismal KC 7-arse-7 doesn't even have windows...:hmm: Presumably they do intend to give their self-loading freight something to sit on though?

Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.

I always get excited when this thread bounces back to the top - that there might finally have been a final decision.

RFP to be released this coming Thursday (1 Oct 09) I believe?

The pro-Boeing brigade are amusing, especially lawmakers and politicians who seem to have little regard for going very public with HALF a story.

There are two very clear facts to be considered...

1. The WTO Report is an interim report, yes Airbus were found guilty, however, Boeing are under investigation for exactly the same thing. Further analysis tells us that the commercial aircraft which were covered by this ruling do not include A330 MRTT aircraft. People in glass houses?? :rolleyes:

2. Under WTO rules (in particular Article 23), member states cannot take retaliatory action outside the WTO process. If the tanker RFP had language that would not allow NGC/EADS to bid due to this interim report, it in itself would be a violation of WTO. Again, these lawmakers are publicly calling for the USA to breach the WTO.. Smart.. real smart. :ugh:


Personally I do not see any other outcome than a split buy. I'm not saying it's the right move, but I think it's what will happen.

As for the DC / VC 10 suggestion...:ugh:

Looks like the Draft RFP has been published:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=docume...3260d4c2d1ee88

Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.

The USAF sometimes has rendition-class passengers. :E

I think from that last comment, we may not see Modern Elmo around these here parts for sometime.

He will be enjoying the "Orange Jumpsuit" weight loss and spititual awakening health spa. He may even get a free tour of some sunnier parts of the world and all without the need for travel documentation. How quaint.
:ooh::E;)

No comment.
 

The Pentagon recently announced its third attempt to find a supplier willing to accept $35 billion in exchange for 179 airborne refueling tankers. If BusinessWeek's reporting proves prescient, that $35 billion will be divided in some way between the two bidders -- Boeing (BA) and EADS' Airbus subsidiary in partnership with Northrop Grumman (NOC).
Before getting into why the contact will likely end up being split, it's worth focusing on the regional politics involved. The Boeing work for the tanker would be done in Washington, Connecticut and Illinois. By contrast, the Airbus/Northrop Grumman tankers would be built in Alabama and South Carolina -- not to mention Europe. In short, the Democratic party wants Boeing to win, and the Republican party favors Airbus/Northrop.
But what would be in the best interest of the Pentagon? A case could be made for divvying up the order based on the fit between different Pentagon requirements and the capabilities of the bidders' different aircraft. Specifically, the Airbus KC-30s would work best for the Pentagon's longer-range assignments across Asia, and the smaller Boeing KC-767s would cost less to operate on shorter refueling jobs.

The Air Force specifications for the tanker put Boeing at a disadvantage. That's because these specs put a heavier emphasis on the tanker's ability to fly long distances and carry more fuel -- thus ruling out Boeing KC-767.
But that's not all. The Air Force wants its tankers to be able to operate on long, 15,000 foot runways at its newer military bases as well as shorter 6,000-foot runways on bases in India and the Philippines. As BusinessWeek points out, this would again put Boeing at a disadvantage because its other possible tanker, a version of its 777 commercial jet, might not meet that spec.
Boeing is playing from behind on two other fronts as well. The Air Force wants early, so-called pre-production, versions of the tanker within 18 months of the July 2010 contract award at a "not-to-exceed" price per tanker. But since Boeing does not know when it will be able to build its KC-777 or how much it will cost, it may not want to comply with the deadline or the fixed-price requirement.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon could wind up back at square one if it awards the contract to one supplier because a single-source deal will almost certainly result in the loser filing a complaint. And that would only further delay the delivery of these badly needed tankers. So to make sure that the third try at awarding that $35 billion is the last, look for the Pentagon to split the bid.

Northrop Threatens To Pull Out of KC-X Race

Northrop Grumman has told Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter it will not bid for a multibillion-dollar U.S. Air Force aerial tanker contract unless major changes are made to the rules governing the competition.

Pentagon officials fired back hours later, vowing to resist altering the rules to meet a competitor's wishes and saying they have run the new competition "right down the middle."

Northrop President and CEO Wes Bush, in a Dec. 1 letter to Carter, said if the Pentagon wants the company and its European partner, EADS, to compete, defense officials must make "meaningful changes" to the draft request for proposals (RfP) for the KC-X program. "Absent a responsive set of changes in the final RfP, Northrop Grumman has determined it cannot submit a bid for the KC-X program" Bush wrote in the letter.

A Northrop spokesman said Bush complained to Carter, the military's top weapons buyer, because Air Force tanker buyers failed to respond to Northrop's concerns that the draft RfP was stacked in favor of Northrop's rival, Boeing. "It is Northrop's expectation that DoD will modify" the RfP, said company spokesman Randy Belote. A final RfP was expected by Nov. 30, but has not yet been issued.

The Air Force is expected to award a contract to Boeing or Northrop next summer for 179 planes. The contract could be worth $35 billion.

In a Nov. 4 letter, Bush asked that Northrop's list of concerns - which already have been transmitted to the Pentagon - be addressed in a revamped draft RfP. The Air Force replied that the department has informed Northrop that it is sticking with the original draft.

Bush said the company is concerned that the evaluation criteria outlined in the draft RfP give a "clear preference" to a smaller plane with "limited multirole capability." The Northrop-EADS KC-330 is larger than Boeing's expected entrant, the KC-767. The former also offers more cargo- and passenger-hauling capacity. The Air Force's solicitation - written along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) - also would place on Northrop, Bush told Carter, "contractual and financial burdens ... that we simply cannot accept."

"This second draft RfP is fundamentally different from what the Air Force said it wanted and needed 18 months ago," Belote said. "The requirement has not changed, but what the Air Force is asking for has changed fundamentally. How did that happen?"

In a statement issued several hours later, the Pentagon said it "regrets that Northrop Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the tanker competition and hope they will return when the final RfP is issued." EADS is the parent company of Airbus.

The DoD statement reiterated defense officials administration-bridging desire for a true competition, but added the Pentagon and Air Force "cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete." DoD said both Northrop-EADS and Boeing have suggested RfP changes "that would favor their offering," but added the department "will not change the war fighter requirements for the tanker to give advantage to either competitor."

The statement repeats Obama administration officials' months-old claim that they have orchestrated this latest attempt at buying new tankers "right down the middle." DoD said a final RfP likely will be released in January.

Northrop-EADS was expected to again compete against Boeing to build new flying gas stations are slated to replace the military's aging KC-135 tankers.

The Bush administration in late February 2008 picked the Northrop-EADS plane over the favored Boeing aircraft, a contract award the latter quickly protested. The contract award was axed that June when the Government Accountability Office determined the Air Force-run competition was flawed. That followed an embarrassing failed attempt earlier this decade to lease KC-767s from Boeing.

Many defense experts, because of that scandal, have stressed the importance of two competitors squaring off for the massive contract. A sole-source contract award could be politically damaging to the military and the White House, experts said. Northrop appears ready to take advantage of this. In the Dec. 1 letter, Bush tells the DoD acquisition chief that Northrop brass "are aware of how important it is to the credibility of the ultimate KC-X tanker award that it be arrived at competitively."

The threat to pull out of the KC-X race will surely be seen by many in the global defense community as an attempt to force OSD and the Air Force into altering the rules and evaluation criteria spelled out in the draft RfP. Bush added that Northrop officials will soon begin notifying its 200 KC-330 supplier firms that the Northrop-EADS team will not compete for the U.S. Air Force contract.

Bush's letter leaves the door open for a Northrop-EADS bid: "It is my hope that the department will modify its approach to this procurement in a way that will enable us to offer our product for your consideration."

Politics, politics, politics.

FLTlt

Have you read the RFP?? It is written in such a way that there is no recognition of extra capability. It is price only. There are 373 mandatory requirements, so the toilet is just as important as the refuelling boom. The RFP is heavily tilted in favour of Boeing. Both planes have the same level of "Built in the USA" items.

As for Airbus withdrawal, Boeing did the same thing last time around.:ugh:

They can see the writing on the wall
 

the 'Buy American' lobby will guarantee Boeing will win regardless so why should Airbus spend their money on fighting a lost cause.

Hopefully the Pentagon will learn a lesson when Boeing (as the sole available supplier) will now be able to charge an outrageous amount per aircraft (ain't a monopoly wonderful)

A free and fair market is perfectly fine provided American products always win

DM

373 mandatory requirements, some will require changes to one or both aircraft. e.g. the flow rate for the boom will mean Boeing will have to upgrade or replace their current design. All requirements can be met by a KC-135 sized aircraft.

Only if both bids are within 1 percent are any other factors taken into account.

The lowest bid winds.

based on the RFP Northrup/EADS have 0% of winning, so they'd be wasting their money trying.

If that's what the DoD/the Obama administration want, then fine, be up front about it. I can see the Congress (especially McCain) be up in arms about a single source bid, but also see no reason why Northrup show throw money away to provide a pretence of a competion. :hmm:

Wasn't the NG bid was cheaper than the Boeing one last time round? If it's not all about price and it's 'capability' that's getting discussed then do the same as Boeing will - promise to meet all 373 points before you've tested anything, then change the contract AFTER it's been signed, when the product doesn't match the promise!

George Talbot column: Dark days for Northrop's tanker team

Northrop Grumman Corp. has made a "tentative decision" not to bid on the U.S. Air Force tanker contract, according to a top defense analyst. Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said senior Northrop executives have determined that their KC-30 tanker - a plane that would be assembled in Mobile - can't win under the Air Force's proposed guidelines.

US to go ahead with tanker plane even without Airbus: Gates

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will go ahead with plans for a new tanker aircraft even if Airbus parent EADS withdraws from the competition for the lucrative contract, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

The administration hoped that EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman would not follow through on a threat to pull out of the bidding, Gates said. "But we will move forward. We have to have new tankers," he told the House Armed Services Committee.

KCs
 

I'll bet Boeing will deliver the Tankers to the USAF meanwhile the Italian Air Force is still waiting for their plane!:}

But since Boeing does not know when it will be able to build its KC-777 or how much it will cost, it may not want to comply with the deadline or the fixed-price requirement.



Is it me or is that not just asking for trouble .letting a company who can't even give you. Ball park figure. a contract ok fair deal things over run but to not give a general price is scarry.

fallmonk,

No, the messiah will stand in front of the teleprompter and ensure everyone understands that

"THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO".

:rolleyes::ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

AWST (Ares): You've Got to Know When to Hold 'Em

Word emerged today that Alabama GOP Sen. Richard Shelby placed a so-called blanket hold on Obama administration nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. Why? Apparently, a desire to force the Pentagon to alter the final USAF KC-X tanker request for proposals, as Northrop Grumman and EADS want, is one reason.

It's often said - so excuse my abbreviated version - that the Senate works by consensus. Indeed, it really can take just one voting member to bring everything to a halt. Historians and pundits like to call the Senate, where members are elected every six years, the cooling saucer to the boiling cup of passions emerging from the House of Representatives, where the whole chamber stands for public judgment every other year.

Still, as Kenny Rogers said, you've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them - and here, it seems, the long-time Alabama senator is certainly making a gamble. How will such a blatantly political, bring-home-the-bacon maneuver play when Congress is at record low confidence levels with the U.S. public?

"While by all accounts a Northrop Grumman contract would create significant numbers of jobs in his home state, Shelby's initiative is also a move to secure funding for a company that has long funded him," note watchdogs at the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity.

We'll see, but I do want to note that Boeing and its congressional boosters - I'm looking at you, Washington state delegation - might also want to be careful what they ask for. As Lockheed and its recent Joint Strike Fighter imbroglio proves, winning a massive defense program isn't everything it used to be.