It’s a fine pickle: The USAF awarded a Northrup Grumman/EADS consortium the contract for their next generation strategic tanker based on the laws imposed by Congress regulating open competitions for military hardware. From what I can tell – and I’m nothing like an expert – their proposal was more capable and had greater flexibility, although the risks of a new transatlantic partnership collaborating for the first time on a major acquisition program are non-trivial.
If interoperabilty means anything, the KC-45 variant of the Airbus A330 has also been selected by the UK, Australia the UAE and our friends in the House of Saud after their own competitions.
If the Air Force acquisition executive – forbidden by law from considering political constraints - earnestly believed that NG/EADS had the better bid (and given all the political scrutiny applied last bout, it’s hard to believe they didn’t) then they were bound to obey federal law in awarding the contract.
Which of course has federal lawmakers in an uproar, and SecDef falling all over himself defending the deal.
$40 billion here or there and pretty soon you’re talking real money, even for Congress. And although it does mean in-sourcing thousands of jobs from Europe to the US and tens of thousands of jobs for Alabama, any number of US congressmen have their knickers in a twist about the political consequences of federal laws forbidding the consideration of political consequences.
If only there was something they could do.
Boeing has a perfect right to protest the contract award based on merits, and for all I know they may well have a case. But it does seem a little strange that the US – who after all is the world’s largest arms exporter – should be afraid of the consequences of fair competition in international trade.
Be that as it may, Congress would be perfectly in its rights to deny funding to the program based on its merits, the politics of the deal, petulance against the USAF for putting them on the spot, or omens and augeries found at the bottom of their morning coffee cups for that matter. That’s the power of the purse, dad.
It’d be a shame though: Sorting out the last collapsed tanker deal in 2002 took six years, and the USAF tanker fleet isn’t getting any younger.
…So buying the (British) Harrier and the (British) B-47 was ok, but not the (partly European) A330 isn’t?
I won’t even mention shoving the 9mm Beretta down the armed forces throats to replace the M1911A1.
Some of those goobers in DC don’t have strong grasp of history, do they?
I’m fairly certain that about half the money in acquisition is wasted because of the rules Congress has put into place to avoid wasting money in acquisition.
Ben Rich in his excellent book on the Skunk works talks about how dealing with the AirForce/DoD procurement was a nightmare.
As I recall, there were something like 35k auditors in DoD. I’ll let you in on a little secret, that’s about how many grunts we have in the army (infantrymen serving as infantryman in infantry units- not some 11 series MOS working on a staff somewhere, but real live dismounts.)
Trust me. The source selection committee or whatever they call it for the USAF followed those laws and rules (the FAR) as set forth by Congress. Probably more so given the recent brouha-ha with Boeing and that chick who took tuition money…
Their rules, their game…were played. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Can ya Congress? Oh yeah my view of reality ain’t the same as a politicians. Sorry. You omnipotent ones, you.
Technically, I ain’t gonna parse this selection. I let all the experts like the airframes 1st class talk about inferior grades of aluminum (spare me, please Glenn). Like the JSF, single engine- no gun- they selected, everybody and their Uncle had input to, including Congress.
All that being said I hope this consortium is better than the Presidential Helo program…
Of course. Lex hasn’t touched on it (yet), but that marvelous entity the NAE wants to buy 69 more Superhornets (of course 33 will be full time tankers in use). That’ll soothe the sting somewhat for Boeing, eh? We can always claim any selection is operationally effective and will work, like SuperHornet as tanker and like P-8 doing ASW above 500′, can’t we? LOL. And finally, what the hell, it’s only $$, right?
That pesky convergence-the perfect storm.
b2
Casey, the Canberra turned into the Martin B-57, and along with the M9 we also got the SAW (part of the deal involving the Belgians buying F16s).
I think Boeing should have been looking at a tanker version of the 777 instead….
Wasn’t the B-47 manufactured by Boeing?
The problem that springs to mind in the selection process seems to be that the USAF sent out a RFP, Boeing proposes the KC-767 to which the USAF seemed amiable. Along comes EADS saying they should get a fair shake but they want to put forth a larger aircraft and propose the KC-330. At this point, Boeing should have switched to offering a version of the 777 but instead the USAF said something akin to “Don’t worry about it, that would be overkill, we’re looking for something along the same lines as the KC-135 and the 767 compares fine.”
Under different circumstances I would hope that contract would go through the process again but due to the age of the fleet, it’s time to begin the process of the replacing them even if it means outsourcing over 40% of the job.
SSG Jeff: Boeing reps say (in the link that Lex gives in the initial post) that they could have done their bid based on the 777 but the Air Force gave them different requirements, such as forward operating base capabilities – which is a big part of what Boeing will be seeking to clarify in the post-selection briefing (which should have already happened and which has been unusually delayed). They want to understand how the selection was made and what criteria were used . . . so, no doubt, they can complain loudly and publicly about getting screwed.
Yes, the B-47 was a Boeing plane. Remember Jimmy Stewart flying the Stratojet in “Strategic Air Command”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-47_Stratojet
I’ll always remember the signature JATO assisted take-off; spectacular sight.
Living just 10 miles from the Boeing factory the 767, 777, and 787 are being built, we hear a great hue and cry about this deal. $40 B is just the beginning of the money flow, the final count adding to $100 Billion before the contract is completed.
Sending that much money overseas in our “time of need” seems counter-productive to our economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs and the number of times a dollar turns over in a local economy weigh heavily on the hearts of men and women in the Puget Sound.
Shipmates,
Didn’t the Navy just sprinf a ton of money for new jet trainers from England? Don’t forget that the Army’s M1 Abrams series tank’s main gun is from Germany (Rhein-Mettal, I believe, but might be Krupp).
A great many embroudered insignia and patches are made in the Phillipines, or India. I’ve seen unit ballcaps sold in the geedunk with labels saying “Made in China”.
What I find most interesting is how the folks in Seattle, the same city famed for moonbats blocking gates and roadways to stop military shipments, who are the borthern cousinhs of the Berkley crowd, are suddenly all up in arms about military spending.. finny how that dollar thingy changes so many die-hard attitudes, eh?
I apporove of this contract. If our airlines are conficant in AirBys products, why can’t our military use them as well?
respects,
I watched the re-run of the Congressional grilling last night on C-span. Wow. The Honorable Mr. Dicks seemed like quite the…well, the name fits.
While I agree that our industrial base and American jobs are important and should be factors in the evaluation of large, long-term contracts the USAF acq. team did their job (this time) per the law.
Overturning the decision and making the USAF eat an aircraft they don’t want (wouldn’t be the first time) would only serve to worsen an already bad (aging tanker fleet) situation at the expense of national security and the needs of our servicemen.
AW1 Tim? Is yer keyboard stickin’? Funny stuff. I had to look up conficant to see if this was a “word a day” I missed. : )
I’ll confine myself to observing that Boeing had a perfect right to submit multiple bids. 767, 777, and 787.
It was their choice to bid the oldest and smallest of the three.
I’m thinking this may be punishment for the consistently anti-military attitude in Seattle and a reward for the consistently pro-military attitude in Alabama
Casey, It was the B-57 Canberra. It was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore. It was basically an English Electric Canberra but adapted for US use. There was an RB-57 unit at Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls, MT when I was a kid on the HiLine. We would see them on occasion.
The Air Force can go ahead and buy the a330 from grumman-airbus(Old A6 guy, can’t use n*******). However when these airframes start and I emphasize start, to age, the troubles will begin. Hint: Keep them away from fields near the ocean. Salt air won’t be good for them. To all Blue Suit Zoomie Wrench Turners, Sorry. Susie Peyton hosed you big time.
Corrosion: The tendency for a metal/alloy to return to it’s original state.
I don’t give a rats *** if the air force buys it. I don’t have to ride in it. Sort of like I don’t ride in a318, 319,320, 321, 330 etc. I would sooner take the train.
LDO Brian,
Naw, the keyboard ain’t sticking, it’s my old eyes, er, rather ONE of the two. At the moment, I am working with only one good one, the other in need of repair when the VA can get around to scheduling the iperation. As a result, sometimes my depth perception isn’t all that great
Respects,
As I said yesterday, Boeing met the RFP, the Original one.
Later in the game, the rules changed (Calvinball!):
http://tinyurl.com/3akqj9
Airbus didn’t have a plane, so they changed the rules so that Airbus could play.
Our tax dollars at work.
Cheers!
ChrisP
I think you Navy boys and girls will appreciate having a tanker that can show up more often, reach further off-shore, and bring more gas.
Then again, I think I could make a case for congress to fund in full, for starters… two USN owned and run KC-45 tanker wings to support carrier ops. Of course that is a bit too logical for the D.C. pork machine to wrap their brain around.
Thank you, ChrisP, for reminding us. Government is the only arena in which one can change the rules mid-contest and get away with it.
I’m just wondering if getting even with some of the people in Seattle, remembering I-5 runs through Oregon to California, is worth out-sourcing 40,000+ jobs and the positive impact they would have, nationwide, on our iffy economy. Not to mention the rule change again, but Boeing asked the AF if they wanted the 777 and received a negative reply. (Remember, the 777 was the first two-engine plane certified for across-ocean, intercontinental travel.)
LDO Brian, I would hope the representatives could come up with mustard for their questions! Despite the fact they’re all Dems, they’re what we have in the game right now.
Boeing does build a much better airframe, witnessed by other comments here, and sending technology and tooling upon which our military depends over seas does seem questionable… even if it’s just baseball caps! Shouldn’t we really be able to manufacture our own weapons and support systems?
SSG Jeff,
Yes, I goofed on the B-47 reference. I know that’s the Stratojet, but that number was stuck in my head. I could remember that the B-57 was also known as the Canberra, and I even hit Wiki to double-check the number. Yet I still typed “B-47.” Mea culpa.
I didn’t know the SAW was part of the Beretta deal; interesting…
PeterGunn raises a vital point about American jobs, but the question as to whether the A330 is the better choice is what motivated my original post. The USAF has gone with “foreign” designs before because they were, well, better choices.
I’ll admit that I don’t know very much about the tanker question, except what I’ve read on strategypage.com. I’m just reacting to the “not invented here” mentality.
Certainly other countries have had the same reaction, refusing to buy American (or British, or…) because it wasn’t “built here.” In most cases these decisions seemed to result in higher costs for that country, and a greater technological isolation.
Lex mentions that the UK and Australia have already selected the KC-45. Wouldn’t it be more effective -in terms of maintenance and spare parts- to coordinate with them, considering the KC-45 won the latest competition?
I’m just sayin’…
If Congress wants to establish a “buy American” policy for some subset of defense procurement, then they should do so by modifying the general procurement regulations, rather than by attempting to micromanage the vendor selection on individual projects.
Just going to point out that the “buy American” fallacy hits this with the same level as it applies to cars.
Which is more American, a Subaru Outback, a Buick Rendezvous, or a BMW X5?
The answer is that all are about the same, with the Scooby and the X5 having final assembly here, stateside. Components come from both over seas and national plants.
I’m entering the Aerospace industry, and yeah, it bites that Boeing lost this contract (but might sell India a swarm of Super-bugs) but that’s the game. Yes the rules got changed mid-game, but come on, this is a company that’s been in the defense industry since before my Italian great-grandfather thought there was a bigger need for architects here in the US and got on the boat. Business is about competing, and if they were desperate enough to get this contract, they could have topped Airbus’ proposal, or even “pimped” theirs better.
I guess if one believes that, buying the JSF is a bad idea. Check out the massive amounts of foreign workshare on the JSF and the U.S. will be buying the lions share of those airframes.
My concerns have nothing to do with the quality of the aircraft. My concerns are purely political. What happens if the political winds shift and the Airbus component of this partership doesn’t deliver crucial parts when they are needed? I can see it now. The US criticizes NATO’s performance in Afghanistan and out of spite the governments involved with Airbus embargo the components for this aircraft.
re – ” then they should do so by modifying the general procurement regulations”
They do. And they have. Congress that is.
I am convinced the source selection committee had to follow those same rules.
But like anything Congressional pols are above or consider themselves to be the “law”. Ex- look no further than the Dem primary, vis a vis FL and MI issue. “Can’t change the rules of the game while you’re playing it” may apply to us commoners just making a living. it means nothing to our “leaders” in Congress.
b2
Jim, the same issue could happen with the Boeing aircraft. Critical components in both are from domestic and overseas sources (IIRC, the Boeing runs on RR engines).
If a situation did happen that way, there would be reverse engineering or parts already available (stockpile, interchangeability) to overcome the problems. It would suck, but that’s what happens when you let other support industries in this country atrophy.
The warfighter’s needs should and must remain the greatest importance. Job creation and retention are important issues but are completely different issues. From the way I look at it, the US fights a war every other year (if not more often). Thus the BEST weapon systems at the BEST cost are needed, even if it is a flying gas station. Imagine you are the grunt in Iraq calling for close support, and the fighter jock tells you, sorry dude, the boeing tanker ran out of gas so I couldn’t top up, and well, good luck to you. Jobs can be re-created. But lives lost cannot be re-lived.
IMO, America is the world’s greatest economy because it has the world’s most competitive companies, think Microsoft, Google, Coca Cola etc etc. So you lose a few thousand jobs some where. Dude, it is not the end of the world. Thousands of ppl lose their jobs in many other countries in the world. They just reinvent themselves and go on.
Boeing should not be whining after losing.Based on their argument, Northrop/EAD’s proposal should then be considered extremely risky. However, it turns out that they are the ones that really understand the customer (USAF) needs. In the acquisition business, that is actually quite a big deal. What Boeing needs to do is to get their act together and stop whinning.
Jim, if Europe and the US start embargoing each other, the problem is much larger than a couple of flying gas stations. EADs denies spare parts. The US retaliates by pulling out completely from Europe…what happens next? Interdependence cannot be denied. Like an old couple that quarrel sometimes, they know how and when not to cross the line.
Anyway, look at the teen series fighters in the US inventory. Which one does not have to lug thousands of pounds of bombs and yet have structural problems ? Certainly there is a political issue to be fought with the Raptors, but this is not the first time eagles fell out due to structural problems.
I am certainly not impressed with Boeing.
The procurement of the M249 was not connected to the M9 purchase, at least in the absence of better information from the National Enquirer.
Cheers
Navy owned tankers sounds like a good idea only in practice the Navy would screw it up. Just like they do currently with Navy airlift. The squadrons would be bastard children within the service and the Navy would not provide adequate resources to make them function well.
Better solution is to get the USAF to do what it is supposed to do-provide assets for CINC verified requirements.
Guppy, Boeing’s overall employee-take on it, as I understand how it was relayed to me (meaning, “take with a grain of salt”) is that the USAF told Boeing in so many words, “We expect you to submit the same aircraft you were willing to rent to us a few years ago.” Boeing asked if an upgraded machine, perhaps the 777 or 787 would do. The Air Force, perhaps at the direction of Congress, told Boeing that those designs would emphatically NOT do, and that they expected to see the price for 767s as delivered to the Japanese recently, and expected to see it quite soon.
Boeing, recognizing that they weren’t entirely in the DoD’s best favor after the rental agreement fell through, did exactly what they were told to do. Except that somewhere along the line, the requirements for the tanker itself changed, making the EADS design the better option more-or-less by default. Had the 777 or 787 been an allowed option for submitting as a bid, the story may have turned out differently BUT having been told in so many words that such bids would not be taken kindly, Boeing is now being told to “Man up and give us something better next time.” Which they could have done *this* time, but were basically told not to bother. Hence the political fallout from our esteemed US-Reps from Seattle, Chicago, and KC.
Hey Blacksmith, how can Boeing offer the 787 as a tanker when they can’t even build it as an airplane?
Skippy, Navy airlift didn’t suck until they started working for the Air Force. TRANSCOM molests collies. They are worse than the worst airline (I know this because I work for the worst airline!).
Remember how NALO used to move EVERYONE in Naval Aviation to Vegas for a weekend and move them all back? (Not that I ever went!)
Nose,
That would be done the same way the KC-135 was offered before it existed as more than a wooden mockup on the shop floor. Not the best way to procure business in my humble opinion, but that sort of decision is way above grade.
Smithy, that was a bit tongue in cheek, I’m venting a bit o’ frustration as the delay in 787 deliveries is having a negative effect on mine own career path, such that it is.
Plus, they put a yoke in it. Silly Boeing engineers.
Ancient history, this thread, but I happened across it so what the heck…
My question is: Why, after sixty years of being the world’s leader in aerospace, can’t the U.S. design and produce its own aircraft? Never mind where we build the damn things. Why aren’t they *our* things – designed by our own engineers?
I was asking the same thing about the Army’s small arms years ago.