Streetcar Line
Pentagon in the Tanker
Boeing’s plane-ly unfair advantage in being awarded what Northrop Grumman had already won.
The Pentagon is playing dirty pool on behalf of the already-dirtiest pool players from Boeing, with regard to the huge (179-plane, about $40 billion) air refueling tanker contract that Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS won fair and square last year before it was stolen away from them.
As a reminder: The swiping occurred after Boeing launched an unprecedented and underhanded political-hardball campaign after Northrop won the contract with a bigger, more versatile, more efficient plane. Boeing’s bid also was some $3 billion more expensive (or $42 million more expensive per plane) than Northrop’s for just the first 64 planes. And Northrop’s offering would support, it believably claims, some 48,000 American jobs at 230 supplier companies in 49 states, compared to 44,000 new jobs that Boeing claimed it would create. The Northrop plane also could start coming off the production lines sooner than Boeing’s, by all accounts.
(Reminder continued:) Yet after Boeing strong-armed politicians and the Pentagon, the Seattle- and Chicago-based company filed a formal protest, alleging more than 100 irregularities in what already had been the most open, public, analyzed contract award in Pentagon history. (The award actually itself was a re-do; at first the Air Force was to lease planes from Boeing, but Sen. John McCain led an investigation which found such serious shenanigans that several Boeing executives and Air Force personnel were convicted in a sort of kickback scheme. Those convictions led the Air Force to open the competition, which Northrop then won, only to have it snatched away.) Eventually the Government Accounting Office found that only eight of Boeing’s 100-plus complaints — among the least serious of the complaints, at that — were valid; but on that reed-thin basis, combined with the political pressure, Defense Secretary Robert Gates in September of 2008 announced he would re-bid the entire competition yet again, never mind what the delay would do to the readiness of a current tanker fleet containing some planes more than 50 years old. The strange decision was announced only after apparent leaks to Boeing-friendly congressmen but not to Northrop-friendly ones, on the same day that Gates and other Pentagon brass dined at the Boeing table for a major 9-11 memorial dinner.
(Still a reminder:) Gates also has repeatedly and stubbornly ruled out the idea of a split contract — first broached seriously in print right here in these pages more than two years ago — even though more and more observers and experienced, neutral congressmen have concluded that the competition between the two companies could lead to more planes, faster, and at a lesser long-term cost. Gates just so happens to have a house, where he plans to eventually retire, just outside of Seattle, where he also has family ties and where Boeing rules the roost. (How much do you want to bet that Gates ends up as a Boeing “consultant”?)
Which, finally, brings us almost up to date. Here’s what’s new (quoting the Associated Press): Boeing continues to deal with ethics problems. In August, it “agreed to pay $2 million to the Justice Department to settle a whistle-blower’s previously sealed claims that the company over-billed the government for work done at a plant in San Antonio.” The whistleblower “claimed Boeing manipulated records to show others besides him had been maintaining Air Force KC-135 tankers when they had not.”
New Criteria Favor Boeing
Yet, when the Pentagon finally got around, late last month, to producing its new Request For Proposal (RFP) outlining exactly what criteria it will use to make the new contract award, it had tweaked some of the requirements in ways beneficial to Boeing. Most disturbing of those tweaks were ones that actually de-emphasized the importance of a plane’s greater capabilities in the name of focusing only on price. Because it was those greater capabilities of the Northrop plane that made the biggest difference for Northrop last time, this change clearly helps Boeing — at the expense, perhaps, of the safety or capabilities of America’s airmen. (“This is no way to buy airplanes,” wrote the Mobile Press-Register’s George Talbot, after interviewing numerous defense acquisition experts.)
More astonishingly, the Pentagon gave a huge competitive advantage to Boeing that has nothing to do with technical superiority or efficiency or anything else that involves actually determining which is the best plane for the job. What it did — get this — was to share Northrop’s pricing data, from its last bid, with Boeing. But it did not share Boeing’s pricing data with Northrop. Obviously, this gives Boeing a huge competitive advantage in crafting its bid — but the Pentagon refuses to make amends.
U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby of Alabama — where the Northrop plane would be assembled in Mobile — have vociferously protested, with Sessions even introducing an amendment to block all funding for the tanker program until the Pentagon releases all the pricing data from the last round of competition. “How can we expect the playing field to be level if one company was given sensitive information about the other’s bid?” asked Sessions, a conservative stalwart, as quoted by the Mobile Press-Register. “If that is the case, the best way to rectify the situation is to demand that information be shared in both directions.”
Sessions is absolutely right. The Pentagon’s stance is manifestly unfair.
Not only should the pricing data be shared, but so should the whole contract. That idea has been given heft by, among a number of others, Michael Wynne, former Secretary of the Air Force, who argued more than a year ago that a split contract could benefit the country far into the future.
Now… why should we care about this?
We should care a lot, because this new tanker is one of the most important, desperately needed pieces of equipment — by almost universal acclaim — for the entire armed forces. Air power is the essential element of force projection in a world made ever more dangerous by the spread of nuclear weapons technology to rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. And, as noted, the current fleet includes some planes more than half a century old, with more and more of them needing to be grounded for more and more repairs.
And, of course, the new technology — a plane hurtling through high altitudes with a “boom” (a long fuel tube) hanging from its belly and precisely maneuverable and insertable into the fuel tank of a jet fighter — is so much more spectacular than the old technology that it’s almost criminal not to give our courageous pilots the advantages of the new stuff.
The Governor’s Joy Stick
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (130) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/08/pentagon-in-the-tanker
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 10.8.09 @ 7:15AM
Concerns with a "split contract":
- Training. Air and ground crew would either need to be trained on both platforms or have crew/aircraft assignments monitored closely. You don't want aircrew from plane A to be paired with ground crew from plane B on a deployment.
- Support/maintenance. Different aircraft require different support and maintenance. There are structural, electrical, hydrolics, avionics, and so forth that would be different.
- Depot maintenance. Major fixes/upgrades like new engines is done at depots. In the case of tankers, probably Tinker AFB, OK. There would be a need for hangers, equipment, technicians, etc. to support two different airframes. True, there is some overlap (e.g, the hanger), but there are some aspects which are platform-dependent.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 3:41PM
... and
- Tarmac and runway improvements are required for the larger of the two. Expanded parking spaces, thicker concrete, etc
Ralph B| 10.8.09 @ 8:25AM
I don't understand...why is it that we are proud of the B-52 and it's capabilities yet the KC-135 can't last just as long? The B-52 was developed and flown earlier than the 135 and still is projected to last another 20 years. This new tanker is not needed especially as we have a budget deficit counted in the trillions
Paul DeSisto| 10.8.09 @ 9:28AM
80% of the B52s havebeen retired and are in the boneyard in Tucson - only the newest H models are flying. The KC-135s are older than the B52s still in service. It's also a matter of technology; the remaining B52s have been ungraded, at high cost, many times. Sometimes it's simply more efficient to start with an entirely new platform
Also, the newer tankers that are planned, both Boeing and Northrop/EADS version, are wide-bodied airframes with much more capacity, requiring significantly fewer tanker aircraft overall, hence fewer airplanes to maintain.
AFSgtHD| 10.8.09 @ 12:55PM
The B-52G's were boneyard bound because of SALT II, not because of airframe life expiration. All of the H models in service today were originally G's, most of which were F's previously. The upgrades have more to do with avionics and such, rather than airframe changes.
Bob Fleer| 10.8.09 @ 1:35PM
B-52 Hs were built as Hs, Gs as Gs and Fs as Fs. NONE WERE EVER CONVERTED TO THE OTHER.
AFSgtHD| 10.9.09 @ 12:56PM
My bad. Some of the airframe TO's cover both G and H models, with the same maintenance stuff for both, leading me to that conclusion.
Bruce B| 10.8.09 @ 4:17PM
I don't know.....(why we need new planes) why to people need new cars every few years or want the latest and greatest gadgets in the new cars with more horse power, speed, etc.? Planes take more abuse and wear just as badly as cars, why not get new ones once every 40 years or so? Contract should be split at minimum and at best given to Northrop.
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 9:13AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Pentagon in the Tanker [spectator.or links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 9:37AM
"Boeing's prototype for the new technology is just that: a prototype only. Northrop, on the other hand, already has a working model." [Quin Hillyer on 10.8.09 @ 6:08AM]
I don't understand this statement.
Prototype I'm familiar with. The destinction between "a prototype only" and a "working model" I'm not familiar with.
A prototype is a working model. What's the difference as the term is being used here?
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 4:30PM
Maybe this article was written awhile back when neither had a customer flown tanker. Today, both have tankers in the air flown by customers countries.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 9:55AM
"Concerns with a "split contract" . . .True, there is some overlap (e.g, the hanger), but there are some aspects which are platform-dependent." [Ralph B| 10.8.09 @ 8:25AM]
Hi Ralph:
These are good considerations, among many others, but rather basic, and one would expect these to be addressed by the design specifications these days.
Standardization is very high now. Plenty of different manufactures produce vehicles that are supported by a common supply system, ground and maintenance crews and crews.
If these are two completely different aircraft designs, which would surprise me, then all of this would be a different matter.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 10:16AM
“Any time we have the opportunity to compete we should take it, and this will be a plane built in America by Northrop] for Americans…." [Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer]
This has a similar sound, but it’s not the same content as Secretary of the Navy Wilbur’s arguments for choosing American-made cruisers, when pushing for the Cruiser bill in late 1927 and 1928.
“Built in America” but this doesn’t necessarily mean "Made In The U.S.A.”
It's more a matter of Assembled in the U.S.A.
Hence the rather low estimates for new jobs created, for a project of this size and scope.
Thomas| 10.8.09 @ 11:19AM
The original evaluation process was flawed in favor of Northrup/Grumman/Airbus from the start.
In the first place, the Air Force requested bids for a "medium" sized tanker. Boeing proposed a tanker based upon their 767, believing that a tanker version of their 777 would be considered a "large" tanker. EADS fielded a tanker based upon the Airbus A330, which is substantially larger than the 767, being analogous to the Boeing 777. There were also at least points where the board obviously discriminated against Boeing and in favor of EADS, one of which was the primary reason given for awarding the initial contract to EADS. The GAO agreed with Boeing in each of these areas. See below for more on this.
"The Air Force didn’t follow its own criteria in measuring the capabilities of each airplane, and was vague in explaining how it would weigh their relative strengths. Boeing offered to meet more nonmandatory requirements than Northrop Grumman, but the Air Force ignored the offer.
USAF gave credit to the KC-30 for far exceeding requirements in aerial refueling even though the rules said no additional credit would be given above a certain level, which Boeing had met. The Air Force had said this was a key discriminator between the two bids, but it shouldn’t have been.
Northrop Grumman got credit for being able to pass fuel to all USAF aircraft capable of aerial refueling, but it wasn’t documented that this was so.
The Air Force told Boeing it had met a particular requirement, but when the service changed its mind, it didn’t tell the company and give it a chance to correct the shortfall. The Air Force was talking to Northrop Grumman about the same requirement at the time.
Northrop Grumman wouldn’t provide a plan for setting up organic depot maintenance for its tanker within two years of delivering the first production aircraft, as required. The Air Force treated this failing as an "administrative oversight" and didn’t penalize the company as it should have.
The Air Force’s evaluation of life cycle costs was "unreasonable." The Air Force’s math was off, and when it was corrected, Boeing’s costs emerged as lower, by a tiny fraction of a percent. Further, USAF calculated military construction costs using a computer model not proved to be valid, and the Air Force used generic information to calculate milcon required, rather than specific costs for each airplane.
The Air Force didn’t believe Boeing’s cost numbers and substituted its own. However, the service didn’t prove that Boeing’s numbers were unrealistic. Moreover, it was unreasonable for the Air Force to develop the costs with the computer model it used because the model was meant to weigh overall program costs and not just nonrecurring engineering costs.
Although the Air Force argued that Boeing lost its right to complain on some points because it didn’t do so during negotiations, GAO said the company was under no obligation to file "a defensive protest" in the middle of the process, and was right to wait until it was debriefed following the selection.
The auditors pointed out that they made no judgment about which company offered the better airplane in the KC-X contest, merely that the process wasn’t sound, and not nearly as "open and transparent" as the Air Force strenuously insisted it was." - Air Force Magazine 08/2008
Scott| 10.8.09 @ 1:02PM
Thomas is absolutely correct. I work for Boeing and have seen the related documents. Boeing wrote a proposal that responded to what the government asked for. NG got extra credit for a bigger plane (that would not be able to land at a number of airfields, by the way) even though the proposal evaluation criteria did not specify that extra credit would be given. As Thomas said above, had Boeing known this, they would have built a proposal based on the larger plane.
Proposals are crafted based on the requirements and the way the proposal will be evaluated which is specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP). If the evaulators deviate from their stated criteria, then that is the basis for a valid protest.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 11:31AM
“Using just a sort of joy stick thing [as in a video game], I could just release [the boom] from the plane so it would descend and then with the joy stick maneuver it to any place on the screen I wanted, and it was remarkably simple.” [Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer]
The Human Engineering aspects.
This statement isn’t surprising at all.
Simplification of operation has been a major aspect of the design basis of new military weapons for 40 years (the Electronics Revolution), and is descriptive of the equipment of most of the post-1987 modernized armed forces. Design specifications are also the reason women can be used in so many more military applications, than ever would have been possible in the past.
We’re getting to a point that a large military, capable of being produced and manned in a short period of time, is realistic again. Something that would have been far more difficult, circa 1955-87, due to the complexity of the developing technologies, and the rapidity of their development.
In the navy and air force, the need for technician/operators, with 1.5-2 years’ of formal foundational training, began to plunge sharply, from this time onward. They were replaced by operators with 3-5 months’ foundational training, which numbers began to rise sharply.
Training-time for technicians can also be streamlined, and time to develop expertise on the job, shortened, due to standardization, equipment and technique, and simplification as well. Lots of mechanics and technicians today are simply parts changers.
5-7 months' foundational training, for technicians in the militarty would be about the equivalent of up to 80% of the technical content of two-year technical programs (most all but the math and humanities).
After the last of the very manpower-intensive WWII equipment was decommissioned in the navy, 1969-80, and after the new pay raises and new types of pay were introduced for the armed forces in 1980, and a number of other technological developments were begun to be introduced, then the navy immediately introduced programs to ‘clear out the deadwood’ via Administrative Discharges. Unskilled manpower was no longer needed to anywhere near the degree as it was up through 1969.
One can say he likes about the so-called Baby Boomers, but it was a generation with a large number of young men who came of age with a range of various skills, acquired from school and from hobbies, mechanical, electrical, electronic and Jack of All Trades kind of stuff one no longer sees as much among as many. Lots of Tinkerers. I’m not fussing at the young Americans today, just making the observation).
The Americans who were kids in the decade of the 1980s onward, have been something quite unique, I believe. The first generation of Americans in which growing up in the manner of what previously would have had one labeled a bum, actually gained them useable skills. Hanging around the Pool Hall, from the 1920s to 1960s would have gained a boy some skills, expertise in a game, but not the most useable kind of skills in life, except in a kind of life not very desirable to most normal people. Some don’t learn things like that until its too late. Pool-playing skills had VERY limited application.
The Video Arcades, and then personal computers, of the 1980s, and the World Wide Web, especially about 1996 onward, have changed that. Now a kid can live like what used to be viewed as a bum, but receive useful training, or at least hone useful skills, playing a game, without even knowing it. And due to the WWW can even do it in the privacy of his own home!
So, not only the ones who know how computers, and technologies, work, and are capable of working on them, and those that just know how to play computer games, are at about the same level, due to design, new technologies, and standardization. Again, I’m not fussing at the young Americans today, just making the observations.
How old is Riley? This guy may be among the first generation of American Congressmen who would be comfortable with grabbing the joystick when offered to him and giving it a go.
20 years ago, then my guess is that just such an offer to a Congressman would have produced a ‘deer in the headlights” look, a hesitation, and decline of the offer to 'play a little'. . ..
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 12:06PM
"20 years ago, then my guess is that just such an offer to a Congressman would have produced a ‘deer in the headlights” look, a hesitation, and decline of the offer to 'play a little'. . .."
Of course, this is a hypothetical, even 20 years ago, these kind of operator controls didn't exist in significant quantity yet.
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 12:13PM
The American Spectator : Pentagon in the Tanker « American Latest Jobs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 12:16PM
"There are only two places in the world today that build these wide body planes. One is in Toulouse, France, and the other is in Washington State.” [Quin Hillyer]
With the French engaged in military design of their own tankers, then a degree of competition is ensured in design and development of differnt design models of these Type warplanes.
The different logistical needs listed by [Darin| 10.8.09 @ 7:15AM] can be dealt with on a Division of Labor basis, between the American and French air forces.
Simultaneously, it will provide a larger fleet of tankers.
Uniformity and interchangeability in the use of either American or French tankers will be ensured, especially now that France has rejoined NATO (a "force multiplier," as in the size of the tanker fleet available).
Al Adab| 10.8.09 @ 12:53PM
That is a good number of tankers. Too bad few seem to have noticed that we're not building enough fighters or bombers to need them A few more combat wings might come in handy some day.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 4:41PM
We see a migration to UAVs, and soon A-UAV's. Luckily, most of these systems can loiter w/o re-fuelng for quite a number of hours. I suspect, the next generation fighter will be unmanned, and may or may not require re-fueling depending upon military field doctrine and systems architecture
Al Adab| 10.8.09 @ 5:04PM
UAVs have significant loiter time and certainly their use will increase, but they do not have the load capacity to hit, oh, say a hidden, illegal nuclear plant in some country that poses a threat to other nations of the world. Also it would be difficult in air supremacy operations to mount enough to do the job.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 8:30PM
True, not today. Tomorrow.
rssg| 10.8.09 @ 1:15PM
I'm in favor of Boeing. Northrup-Grumman, while two fine companies (now merged as one) is nonetheless, really a front for the Europe's Airbus consortium.
Boeing has all the experience in producing large military aircraft, specifically air refueling tanker aircraft. Keep our weapons systems American - Boeing is the way to go.
John| 10.9.09 @ 2:08AM
Are we as a nation ready to outsourse our military aircraft requirements to a consortium of manufacturers from nations who could control our ability to maintain readiness by making spare parts unavailable.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 1:19PM
"…48000 American jobs at 230 supplier companies in 49 states, compared to 44000 new jobs that Boeing claimed it would create." [Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 12:13PM]
What a pitiful number of new jobs for a project of this scope, magnitude, and cost.
I wonder what the estimate of new jobs created, on a global basis, is?
P.S. What's a pingback? I've seen these things and have been curious. . .
Tim| 10.8.09 @ 1:33PM
Esoteric.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 3:38PM
I don't know Quin Hillyer, but this article is so strong it seems written by a lobbyist. It is purposefully slanderous and ignores even basic facts. So much so, it cannot be used as a basis for pragmatic decision making.
Old Soldier | 10.8.09 @ 3:44PM
I have no opinion on tankers but I am starting to realize why I was issued a rifle designed in the 1950's that only functions periodicly.
Tim| 10.8.09 @ 4:23PM
Heh! They've added so much...stuff. I hear a cupholder is next.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 3:55PM
"The air refueling boom was developed and perfected by The Boeing Company starting with the boom on the KB-29P tanker that entered service in 1950." [Ed C.| 10.8.09 @ 3:33PM]
A modification of B-29 bombers, just as the Stratotanker, I think it was called, was a modification of old B-52s.
Originally pioneered by Strategic Air Command (SAC). By 1965, I think it was, helos could be refueled in flight.
It's why maritime shipping for aircraft transport is no longer needed, as it was during World War II, and was for small aircraft and helos through to 1965 or so.
It is why Advanced Bases are still absolutely necessary, for the fueling tankers, and damaged, or malfunctioning aircraft, at the miniumum, if one is to use ground-based air forces, on inter-continental attacks. Ground-based air forces are the only air forces capable of delivering substantial bomb loads.
Air forces so configured can't function without them Advanced Bases.
The potential adversary that drove the development of in-flight refueling was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), with some impressive capabilities of its own.
It's absurd that this essay lists only North Korea and Iran, by way of current justification. This says a lot about the Video Arcade Generation that these peon-nothing countries can continue to be used to frighten with, as well, . . .
Wingo| 10.8.09 @ 4:16PM
"And, of course, the new technology -- a plane hurtling through high altitudes with a "boom" (a long fuel tube) hanging from its belly and precisely maneuverable and insertable into the fuel tank of a jet fighter -- is so much more spectacular than the old technology that it's almost criminal not to give our courageous pilots the advantages of the new stuff."
new stuff? this "stuff" has been around ever since Boeing invented the flying boom in the 1940's at the behest of general Curtis LeMay.
Hillyer is either willfully ignorant in this statement or dishonest in an attempt to discredit Boeing.
Either way this column does a disservice to AS's high standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling
also if this new tanker is to be used to refuel choppers and navy planes it will need the old fashioned probe and drogue system too.
The KC-10 currently has both the flying boom and the probe and drogue systems.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 4:26PM
and, the EADS/Airbus plane can't fly slow enough to refuel all required fixed wing aircraft. Yet, were there any demerits?
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 4:24PM
“I don't know Quin Hillyer, but this article is so strong it seems written by a lobbyist. It is purposefully slanderous and ignores even basic facts. So much so, it cannot be used as a basis for pragmatic decision making.” [123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 3:38PM]
I have to agree that the essay does read like it has more than a bit of a slant to it.
The Air Force’s new tanker modernization program has been made an issue, on and off, for at least a couple years now, including the brief moment in the sun during the electoral campaigns last year, due to McCain’s and Obama’s statements.
As I recall, McCain favored buying European, and that led to Obama booming out a Buy American sounding blast, followed, a couple days to a week later, by him making a weak squeak about a qualifier, based on a percentage difference in cost between American or European.
That was followed by some news from the Air Force about alleged procedural irregularities, and plan to start over, as I recall.
Now it’s this.
It sure didn't take this to get the KB-29. "Marshall's loss of China," followed quickly by the the Korean war, U.N. Command and the Korean War, and the advent of Soviet MiGs, and such, made it a bit clearer as to why such things were needed.
Of course, for all of the allegations and the different debates, American versus European, Boeing versus N-Gruman, then in the midst of all of this NOISE, the basics of what the country needs, and why we need it, is lost completely.
Tim| 10.8.09 @ 4:25PM
Recondite
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 4:36PM
"Esoteric" [Tim| 10.8.09 @ 1:33PM]
Pingback is confidential information?
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 4:41PM
"Recondite" [Tim| 10.8.09 @ 4:25PM]
Unfortunately.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 4:47PM
The tactics, not the basics of what the country needs, and why we supposedly need it.
Down State in a Blue state| 10.8.09 @ 4:55PM
When you get to the nut of it all : The needs of the the Air Force are better served by the selection of the Boeing tanker. The Boeing product that is better suited to the current task and the needs of the Air Force for the foreseeable future of in theater operations. Ok - the Airbus maybe a more efficient aircraft design. It would however be a poor logistical choice. The " unforeseen consequences " would be many and only unforeseen to those that would need to cover their sixes. The bottom line is - The Airbus is to big to be where it needs to be.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 4:57PM
"Esoteric" [Tim| 10.8.09 @ 1:33PM]
Or the estimate of new jobs created, on a global basis, is confidential, privileged information?
There were two questions, which did you respond to?
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 5:05PM
"When you get to the nut of it all : . . ." [Down State in a Blue state| 10.8.09 @ 4:55PM]
This brings back memories.
This reads like an entry in a commissioned officer's fitness report.
How to express praise, and then say absolutely nothing by way of justification, but make to it sound as though you did, as well as sounding as though you did it concisely.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 5:14PM
The military excels at this kind of jargon-riddled double-talking babble.
This gunk was filtering down to the enlisted by about the mid 1980s.
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 6:09PM
Is the Fix in for Boeing on the Tanker Competition? « Beagle Scout links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 6:17PM
Is the Fix in for Boeing on the Tanker Competition? - LJMiller96’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 6:17PM
Is the Fix in for Boeing on the Tanker Competition? - LJMiller96’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Down State in a Blue State| 10.8.09 @ 6:33PM
Attack the messenger.
Attack the message.
Attack, attack, attack.
Tell them what you are about to tell them.
Tell them.
Tell them what you told them.
When you get to the nut.
That means I have already filtered it for you.
So listen and learn. (With or without maggot or some such.)
Last but not least.
Memories...
I will try to respect your opinion -
But you will respect my authority.
(after OCS)
Paul:
I chimed in with a view grounded in pragmatism and personal experience. I have been close to the procurement process. Take it from a very old war fighter. My bottom line statement is concise and accurate. The Airbus is to big to be where it needs to be.
I also agree that this article sounds like it was written by a lobbyist.
Down State in a Blue State| 10.8.09 @ 7:26PM
Paul:
Clarification:
I have been close to procurement process on other projects - Not the Tanker project.
After rereading my statement. I thought it was misleading.
Also the longer version:
I will try to respect your opinion when I ask for it.
You will respect my authority at all times .
Without question or comment unless I ask for it.
Which I will not.
Ed C.| 10.8.09 @ 10:41PM
"The air refueling boom was developed and perfected by The Boeing Company starting with the boom on the KB-29P tanker that entered service in 1950." [Ed C.| 10.8.09 @ 3:33PM]
A modification of B-29 bombers, just as the Stratotanker, I think it was called, was a modification of old B-52s.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 3:55PM
No B-52s were ever modified to serve as tankers.
The B-29D evolved into the B-50 but because it included so many improvements, it was redesignated the B-50A, having 59 percent more power than the B-29 with four 3,500-horsepower P&W R-4360-35 engines in addition to many other airframe and aerodynamic modifications.
Oldefarte| 10.9.09 @ 12:54PM
The 'fix' has been in since inception. Let me connect the dots for you----Boeing is AFL-CIO/unionized, and was formerly HQ'd in Seattle but now in """"Chicago"""""; Northrop would build the tankers in Mobile, Alabama [which historically votes Republican and is located in the """""South"""""] with NON-UNION/AFL-CIO laborers. GET THE [CHICAGO WAY]PICTURE??????????????????
Richard Baker| 10.9.09 @ 6:04PM
Old soldier:
Yes, the AR-15/M-16 first issued in Vietnam had teething problems. Name a new weapons system that hasn't. With systematic improvements, the M-4 system fielded now is a very good weapon. Talk to the kids who use them these days. There is a reason that the Stoner design has prospered and developed. Look at the aftermarket for AR-type rifles. It works!
Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 6:52PM
Alabama Senators try to sway tanker bidding « Machinists News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 9:04PM
Richard Allen Smith: Cannibal Conservatism: Author Makes Up Charges Against Secretary links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 10:54PM
Pentagon and Boeing continuing shenanigans « Whistleblower Support Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
David| 10.10.09 @ 9:57AM
I have lost all respect for Spectator.org for publishing this obviously paid EADS/NGC smearing hit piece. If there is a Pulitzer Prize for shoddy work, Quin Hillyer is a shoe-in.
As others have pointed out, the GAO upheld Boeing's protest because the Air Force did not follow the criteria set out in the RFP and their "errors" directly resulted in possibly the wrong contractor being selected.
George Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 12:32PM
As someone who was once quite familiar with Air Force procurement issues I need to take issue with the writers assertion that the GAO report found "a reed-thin basis" to sustain the Boeing protest of the contract award.
The errors (if that is the appropriate phrase) made in the source criteria selection modifications were egregious - and not in accordance with federal law. Although the GAO report was only ADVISORY it did reflect the probable outcome had that protest been taken to court. DOD saw the writing on the wall and initiated action to suspend the contract award for the good of the government - knowin dand well that the government was going to lose a huge lawsuit if they didn't.
I'm not excusing the hanky-panky that went on with the Dep AFSec for Procurement and Boeing - even though SHE INITIATED THAT WHILE STILL EMPLOYED BY THE USAF but nor should we excuse the obvious political interference by John McCain and others that put pressure on the AF procurement officials to enact squirrely last minute changes (many of which were communicated to only one of the bidders) to the source selection criteria of what was supposed to be a small tanker replacement (the larger tanker replacement - a follow on to the KC-10 - is yet to come - when the Airbus people refused to put up a small tanker for bid - insisting on going with the A330 which was larger than the KC-135 (indeed, larger than the KC-10, although holding considerably less fuel).
Which aircraft - the 767 or the A330 - would have been best for the Air Force may be arguable and sort of depend upon the scenario for which it's employed. Which aircraft should have won the previous competition had the RULES been followed really isn't.
Oh, and as for booms - those things fuel is delivered through - that's hardly new technology. KC-97s had them - heck I think KB-50s had them, even before the KC-135s came out in the mid to late 1950s. While some aircraft still use probe and drogue (mostly Navy aircraft) boom refueling has been the norm in the USAF since before 1960.
Mr. Hillyer needs to do a little more research before writing such dogmatic bombasts....
just a guy| 10.12.09 @ 12:14PM
I agree with George. The GAO bid protest regime is non-partisan and pretty much immune form lobbying or other pressure. It is merely a quick and inexpensive method to protest when the government doesn't follow the rules and rigs a procurement without having to go to court.
The GAO findings from the protest were that the Government clearly and repeatedly broke the rules in a way top favor one competitor over the other one. The real issue is how could the Air Force mess up such a big procurement so badly?
Paul Crowley| 10.10.09 @ 3:20PM
“Memories... I will try to respect your opinion -But you will respect my authority.(after OCS)” [Down State in a Blue State| 10.8.09 @ 6:33PM]
“Paul: . . . I will try to respect your opinion when I ask for it. You will respect my authority at all times . Without question or comment unless I ask for it.
Which I will not. [Down State in a Blue State| 10.8.09 @ 7:26PM]
HI DSiaBS:
The first parody [Down State in a Blue state| 10.8.09 @ 4:55PM] was pushing it, but the stye was recognizeable, even if grossly exagerated (as, I said, like entries in a commissioned officer's fitness report: How to express praise, and then say absolutely nothing by way of justification, but making it sound as though it did, as well as sounding as though it was done concisely; jargon-riddled double-talking babble that was filtering down to the enlisted evaluations by about the mid 1980s).
However, these two latest parodies from you, plunge right over the edge into the absurd.
Ten years ago, I’d have seen the more cornball elements of your first parody as absurd itself. While plenty of us have memories of certain ensigns (or 2nd lieutenants), then the only type of guys that I knew in the military, more commonly a small fraction of enlisted, that this kind of cornball phrasing appealed to were the kind that could be dubbed ‘not the brightest lights in the harbor.’ Commissioned Officer wise, then a man like this wouldn’t make it past Lieutenant j.g., at best.
But after some of things that we had to obvserve from the likes of Tommy Franks 4-6 years ago, then apparently something has changed. For a General/Flag Officer, then some of his P.R. displays, and immediately-post-retirement statements, seemed at times surreal, themselves worthy of being dubbed cartoonish, but, unfortunately, Tommy (‘I’m an independent kinda guy, that’s just how I am’) Franks, was obviously, and unfortunately, all too real.
Paul Crowley| 10.10.09 @ 3:33PM
No B-52s were ever modified to serve as tankers. . . the B-50” [Ed C.| 10.8.09 @ 10:41PM]
Hi Ed:
Thanks for the correction.
You recognized my typo. I never did like the Army/Air Force bomber identification system (but it was developed for an amateur like me. . .).
It was the B-50s converted into KB-50s that I was thinking of. I think that last of those were taken out of service sometime around 1965, no? I don’t remember if they were called stratotankers, like the KC-97 and KC-135, or not.
As to no B-52s, then:
Maybe you can, but I won’t say that no B-52 was ever modified in some kind of test of some kind or not, like the B-36 that was converted into a tanker. If so, then I’m not aware of it (which isn’t saying much, in my case). As much as the military tinkered and played with its equipment, 1946-89, then I’m leary of saying never in cases like this. But this wasn’t my intention when I mistyped B-52 for B-50.
I guess that the KC-10 Extender is being wiped from memory, in the discussion of the history of tankers, since McDonnell Douglas has gone the way of Sperry, in the world of armaments?
Paul Crowley| 10.10.09 @ 3:53PM
"I have lost all respect for Spectator.org for publishing this obviously paid EADS/NGC smearing hit piece. If there is a Pulitzer Prize for shoddy work, Quin Hillyer is a shoe-in." [David| 10.10.09 @ 9:57AM]
Plenty of Pulitzers are awarded for what could easily be dubbed shoddy work. It's the usefulness as propaganda that most often seems to motivate the award.
As to this particular 'tempest in a teapot,' then there's a stench associated with all of these Air Force Tanker crises of the past few years.
This whole business is pure Horse Manure and about as genuine as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
So much public passion over a irregularieis in procurement of one new new warplane.
The only usefulness of this particular "Vitriol and Instruction" that I can see is that the American public will be instructed by it of the unquestioned NEED by the government of a large, very expensive, fleet of new tankers; manufactured globally in the American-Anglo-French bloc, and assembled in the U.S.A. (much like Russian "manufacturing" during World War II).
Why these tankers, and the new modernized and oversized peace-time military are so needed, or what potential war is being readied for, is lost in the NOISE. The American Human Resources can learn that when the time comes, and when they're needed.
The real question is what are these tankers, and this new modernized military being built, needed for? What is the government (The National Security Council, via the departments of State and Defense), that owns this country, and leads this bloc, up to?
Geroge Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 3:57PM
It was the B-50s converted into KB-50s that I was thinking of.
I stand corrected on those. They were all probe and drogue:
http://images.google.com/imgre.....N&um=1
The KC-97 did use a boom though:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu.....g/kc97.jpg
The KC-97 operated from 1950 into the the late 1970s (at least in the Guard and Reserve.). The Air Force bought a total of 816 of them.
So I guess it's fair to say that the boom is NOT new technology, nor was it developed by Airbus. The KC-97s were all built by Boeing, just as the KC-135s were.
George Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 4:23PM
Gates also has repeatedly and stubbornly ruled out the idea of a split contract -- first broached seriously in print right here in these pages more than two years ago -- even though more and more observers and experienced, neutral congressmen have concluded that the competition between the two companies could lead to more planes, faster, and at a lesser long-term cost.
Then these people are idiots. If you have two programs you pay for two sets of program managers - need two new logistics support systems to provide supplies - documentation - configuration control. Then you need two complete inventories of war readiness stores... two replacement training units (one for each aircraft) - two sets of tech training courses for the people that will maintain them.
You wind up doubling the overhead while compounding your planning problems through lack of commonality.
Anyone who thinks ANY program should be split in two like this is thinking of nothing but politics. They've never maintained or deployed an aircraft fleet in their entire lives.
Paul Crowley| 10.11.09 @ 1:44AM
“Gates also has repeatedly and stubbornly ruled out the idea of a split contract -- first broached seriously in print right here in these pages more than two years ago . . . the competition between the two companies could lead to more planes, faster, and at a lesser long-term cost” [Quin Hillyer].
“Then these people are idiots. . . You wind up doubling the overhead while compounding your planning problems through lack of commonality.
Anyone who thinks ANY program should be split in two like this is thinking of nothing but politics. . . .”
[George Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 4:23PM]
No comments after Mr. Henshaw’s comment?!
Where are all of the Free Marketees? Still dazzling readers with their brilliance in comments on about the New York Yankees and Major League Baseball?
This is a tricky and confusing combination, made in only one brief comment.
Any consideration of what is supposedly needed, and why it is needed.
I.e. Why are these tankers, and the new modernized and oversized peace-time American military needed, what exactly is the extent of the armed forces at the moment, or what potential war is being readied for?
Hence the confusion.
Further:
“long-term cost” (at least in this brief essay) by Hillyer is undefined.
What cost or ‘cost effective’ accounting scheme is being used?
Allocation of Resources (of course)?
Goal based?
Currency-based?
A combination of some or all of these, and maybe others?
Or, What?
“Politics” by Mr. Hanshaw is undefined.
I don’t know precisely what Mr. Hanshaw means by “politics.”
Ralph B| 10.11.09 @ 6:10AM
I still see no reason why this contract can't be let 5 years from now. Look up the operation rate of KC-135's, they are very reliable. There is no pressing need for this right now, not with the current financal mess we have.
Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 7:11AM
I posted this on the 8th, it was removed, by someone at The American Spectator, but I'm going to repost it.
Paul Crowley| 10.8.09 @ 3:25PM
“Using just a sort of joy stick thing [as in a video game]” [Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer]
I would have left out "a sort of" and "thing."
This phrasing probably helps date Riley as a member of the Video Arcade Generation too (or one of those types who is just "young at heart"). I wonder how many "ums," "ers," and "well, basically" this guy uses in his speech? He's probably a soda pop drinker, rather than a coffee drinker, and likes watching cartoon movies (A.K.A. Animated Features) too? Our country's Hope of the Future, has come of age. . .
But that aside, the term joy stick long-preceded me.
When I was a kid it referred to the control stick in an airplane. The Red Baron, or even a jet fighter kinda stuff. . . I don't remember exactly what the controls on Pong (the Grandaddy of the later to be named Video Games) were when it came out (buttons I think).
I wonder who came up with the idea of using the samed term used to designate the control lever of an airplane for the conrol lever used to a play an electronic game?
Some Behavioralist somewhere?
Paul Crowey| 10.12.09 @ 7:32AM
“new stuff? this ‘stuff’ has been around ever since Boeing invented the flying boom in the 1940's at the behest of general Curtis LeMay. Hillyer is either willfully ignorant in this statement or dishonest in an attempt to discredit Boeing. Either way this column does a disservice to AS's high standards. [Wingo| 10.8.09 @ 4:16PM]
Yes. NEW TECHNOLOGY.
No boom was operated in the 1940s by “Using just a sort of joy stick thing [as in a video game]” [Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer]
It was not at all common even in 1986.
Modified, experimental warplanes aside, then this kind of technology is new.
Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 7:43AM
“Oh, and as for booms - those things fuel is delivered through - that's hardly new technology. . . boom refueling has been the norm in the USAF since before 1960. [George Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 12:32PM]
Yes. NEW TECHNOLOGY.
Booms operated “Using just a sort of joy stick thing as in a video game]” [Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer] as not been a norm since 1960.
It was not even the norm in 1986.
As to Mr. Hanshaw's comments in his last post [George Hanshaw| 10.10.09 @ 4:23PM], then
all but the last statement by Mr. Hanshaw are classical arguments of Economy of Scale for an Integrated Company Model of organization:
Centralized management at the top, directing all the aspects of the enterprise, at every stage: From design, to development, to production to operation.
However, they are traditional arguments of Economy of Scale and an Integrated Company Model of organization usually applied to a BUSINESS operation.
In this instance, a business operation is not what is being considered: Rather, this is a government enterprise.
The U.S. Air Force is a government agency, a sub-department of the Department of Defense. The Armed Forces are not a set of commercial enterprises, with the same concerns as business enterprises.
So, one can throw out the business-sounding statements and arguments (e.g. “pay for” and overhead”) (“Cost Effective” used to be the popular jargon, back when. . . ).
I don’t say that the allocation of resources will be wasteful, or inefficient, but simply that such terminology does not apply to the armed forces.
Whatever decision is made will be based on strategic goals set by our government, and, on that basis, the allocation of resources will be made accordingly.
Mr. Hanshaw's comments on project management, and maintenance, also read more like we're in 1979, rather than 2009.
He's obviously out of touch with the modernized American Armed Forces (and just about all of the reformed corporations at this time, as well). New technology, and techniques, and the new bloc-wise manufacturing ("gloabalism"), a modern version of American-Anglo-Russian manufacturing during World War II, has coupled with this new technology, has changed a great many things, including the pros and cons of multiple contracts.
Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 8:28AM
“I still see no reason why this contract can't be let 5 years from now. Look up the operation rate of KC-135's, they are very reliable. There is no pressing need for this right now, not with the current financal mess we have." [Ralph B| 10.11.09 @ 6:10AM]
Hi Ralph:
Your statement is the thinking of a normal, intelligent, and trusting, human being (I say that as a compliment).
There is no good reason, where the good of America, her citizens, and her allies, are concerned, for the modernization of the American Armed Forces that is now taking place. The bills enacted into law of the past three years now sum into the multiple trillions of dollars.
These particular weapons are clearly is designed to fight a technologically capable enemy. No such equal enemy exists. No such enemy that can attack, or significantly threaten, THIS country, or the countries of the American-Anglo-French bloc of countries, will exist, not even in the long-term future.
We have more than sufficient capabilities that allow the time to modernize our armed forces rationally, so as to ensure that this remains true well into the distant future.
It certainly is not needed for WEAKLING countries such as North Korea or Iran.
The mention of North Korea as a reason by Hillyer is an absurdity that should draw protests in comments. As near as I can see, I’m the only one to be doing so.
The technology has now been so simplified and standardized, from a manning (operations and maintenance) perspective, that we’re now getting back to the ability to rapidly build and a man a large conscript military again.
With that said, then:
There are at least two obvious reasons for the why the Air Force wants these tankers.
MODERNIZATION is the only one alluded to here, and not the most important of the reasons.
Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 8:41AM
“I still see no reason . . . ." [Ralph B| 10.11.09 @ 6:10AM]
“And, of course, the new technology -- a plane hurtling through high altitudes with a "boom" (a long fuel tube) hanging from its belly and precisely maneuverable and insertable into the fuel tank of a jet fighter -- is so much more spectacular than the old technology that it's almost criminal not to give our courageous pilots the advantages of the new stuff.”
[Riley quoted by Quin Hillyer]
Hi Ralph:
There are two obvious reasons for the why the Air Force wants these tankers, Hillyer’s statements alludes to one of them, and numerous of the comments made here distract from it: MODERNIZATION.
The Modernization in this instance allows for greater STANDARDIZATION.
A major element of the standardization is the greater flexibility in the use of people (operators especially).
The “courageous pilots” Hillyer wants to give “the advantages of the new stuff” is misleading. Not because of the “new stuff” part, but because of the courageous pilots” part.
The “new stuff” (and it is) enables the use of a greater range of people that can be used to man the equipment as operators.
It’s so simple, and eliminates the physical stresses perviouly common to the boom operator, that even an AVERAGE, moderately healthy, 18 year old woman, of average intelligence can operate it. Previously these have required healthy, AVERAGE, young men to man the planes as boom operators (nothing extraordinary mind you, just an average military-age young man, about 17-37 years old).
No wonder we’ve been getting Cartoonish tough-guy talk from our General and Flag officers during their P.R. routines, and from so many other lesser propagandists, during our Post-Cold War era (i.e. since about 1991).
The more effeminatized, less demanding, mentally and physically, and the generally less hazardous that the military has become, and becomes, then the more absurdly macho has been the rhetoric.
I believe that the terms that the so-called social scientists use are “compensating” or “over-compensating.”
Of course this is just PUBLIC RELATIONS (P.R.).
In reality, most present-day military officers are more normal, even clerkish, lower-management looking and sounding type individuals.
There is less and less "courage" required to pilot modern aircraft. It certainly requires no courage to man a warplane at present. There is not one of the punitive expeditions that we're inolved in that threaten these people in any way. The American-Anglo-French bloc has complete Air and Naval Dominance (not just superiority) in southwest and central Asia at present.
As I said, there is no good reason for the multi-trillion dollar (and growing) modernization of the American Armed Forces that is now taking place, where the good of America, her citizens, and her allies, are concerned.
There obviously is a reason though, strategically based, and known to our government (National Security Council, via departments of Defense and State). Clearly, we're not being told explicitly what it is.
Down State in a Blue State| 10.12.09 @ 7:50PM
It has been four days since I last had a chance to view this web page. I was pleased to see that the conversation continues. The comments here have more thought provoking than the original article. The article and comments should be forwarded to staff on the Senate Military Appropriations Committee for review.
To Paul Crowley:
Hey Paul - thanks for the retort.
You dubbed my original post as jargon-riddled babble (I paraphrase ).
You should know it took four generations of military inbreeding to achieve that level of precision in communication.
In retrospect I might substitute area for theater and butt for six(es). I think however six is a better and more polite euphemism for what I did not use. Beyond that it may be a simple question of construct (style). Your comments prompted to me to share some genuine over the top remarks that I had heard and collected through the years. In an attempt at levity I tried to illustrate absence of justification by greater absurdity. I hope the humor was not lost.
Mr. DSiaBS
P.S.
Paul:
I think the moniker is great.
I especially like the way it ends in BS.
But you forgot the Mr.
END
Trackback| 1.1.10 @ 8:49PM
al credit repair, on al credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 1.30.10 @ 7:13AM
Public Sector Contracts, on Public Sector Contracts, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:52PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 4:29AM
This can be a nice web page. Good fresh interface and nice informative articles. I am ever coming back soon,wanted great article.
yaz class action
shia| 10.18.11 @ 10:11AM
an expert african said the blog you use thats the only way to promote your blog also..thanks i like the topic here..
mesothelioma lawyer
creamer| 10.20.11 @ 3:11AM
The quality of content is fine and the conclusion is good. Thanks for the post.
Actos Attorneys
abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 4:48PM
It proved to be really helpful to me and I’m sure to all the commenter right here! It is always good when you cannot only be informed, but additionally engaged! I am sure you had joy writing this article.
L Tod Schlosser
wow| 11.13.11 @ 10:05PM
Hello there, I discovered your web site by the use of Google whilst looking for a comparable matter, your website came up, it looks good. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
zoloft lawsuits