We have no idea of the basis of the Northrop Grumman statement.
We continue to press every ground in our original appeal. We have neither abandoned nor narrowed any ground. In fact, our supplemental filings have added additional grounds to our original filing based on the information we have received from the Air Force since filing our protest on March 11. Any assertion to the contrary is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts.
This website is made available to the general public to express opinions regarding the Tanker competition and contract award. As such, the opinions of the commenters expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of The Boeing Company (Boeing). Further, Boeing does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor does it assume any liability or responsibility, for the information contained on this site.
In the last 10 years Boeing Commercial has produced 10 major derivatives, all delivered on time with the exception of one that was rescheduled due to 9/11.
Atom
Comments (9)
Wow! Two hugely embarrassing gaffes for Northrop Grumman in one day. They are on a roll! Perhaps they would be wise to vet their information before it becomes mis-information? They aren't making many friends in the media with this approach.
I continue to maintain that the Air Force was beguiled by "bigness". Since I don't have a background or advanced degree in "tanker-ology", perhaps you all could clarify a couple of points? I have read where most KC-135 missions actually return with undelivered fuel on board. If true, what does that do the argument that the USAF desperately needs this capability? Also, I have read where Airbus is touting the capability of the KC-30 to deliver fuel faster. Aren't most receiving aircraft limited to the rate at which they can take fuel from the tanker? If so, then the capability to offload fuel is only an advantage at the parking place on the ground!
I am convinced that the Air Force, using Northrop-Grumman's modeling software of course, used extreme scenarios to make their case for the bigger plane. I would be curious to know the operating cost comparisons for the KC-30 vs KC-767 for the preponderance of "normal" operating and training missions. I suspect the difference is HUGE.
Speaking of huge, if there's one thing the generals like better than BIG, it's MORE. Buy more C-17s! At the end of the day, it's about what's best for America. That equation includes preserving the defense insfrastructure and keeping control under our own leaders, not outsourcing to France or Germany. I note news reports today that these two countries rebuffed George Bush's overture to include the Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members and steadfastly refuse to put their troops in harms way in (southern) Afghanistan. Time for W to return the favor and dump this misguided selection decision.
This deal is simply bad for America. Hopefully, the GAO will toss it, but if it don't then there are a couple of elections coming up which will afford an opportunity for a debate.
Posted on April 3, 2008 03:30
Get over it already. You are making your company looks selfish - and not focused on what should really matter to all the defense contractors - the warfighters..
Posted on April 3, 2008 07:00
I guess this doesn't count, huh?
Air Force Evaluation Found Boeing Tanker More Capable, Survivable for Flight Crews
Thursday April 3, 10:51 am ET
ST. LOUIS, April 3, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- While the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract to build the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), Air Force evaluators found the Boeing (NYSE: BA - News) KC-767 Advanced Tanker offers more mission capability and has a better chance of surviving combat than the larger Northrop-EADS KC-30 tanker.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080403/aqth066.html?.v=41
Posted on April 3, 2008 09:39
Stephen, that article is a duplicate of a P.R. news release from Boeing's Web site, written by Boeing communications practioners. It is no more valid than me posting a rebuttal from a Yahoo or Wall Street link of a Northrop Grumman news release.
Posted on April 4, 2008 12:21
At $100 billion in eventual cost to the taxpayer, I think some public discussion of the award is a good idea to be sure the small Air Force procurement team made the decision in our best interest. I want to hear NG's rebuttal to Boeing's recent survivability and refueling capability claims. Unless NG proves otherwise, their KC-30 can't refuel the V-22 Ospry; that's a big weakness.
Posted on April 4, 2008 14:59
Paul in Tulsa, if you are correct, then you make a very valid point. When I posted that I did not know it was merely a claim made by Boeing. If it is not true, however, it needs to be addressed. My fault for using Yahoo as a credible source.
Posted on April 7, 2008 08:38
This is specifically for Scott - as a warfighter I would rather have the best and not the most expedient. If the KC-30 can't refuel the Ospry - that would be a big problem as it limits our ability to put boots on the ground quicker and safer than an airborne/helicopter mission. Sleep well knowing that your defense is in the hands of countries that have no means to defend themselves.
Posted on April 8, 2008 13:08
Just how much in income taxes do those aviation workers in France and Germany pay the U.S. Government? Did the Air Force factor that into their cost analysis?
Airbus says that they will assemble the 339s in the United States but the vast amount of dollar value of the airframe would be generated overseas.
Posted on April 27, 2008 19:01
I think those that made the decision to award the Contract to the other team instead of Boeing folish. What happens in the event France and Germany are at WAR with the US? This may seem laugable at this stage but when that happens, severe repercussions will be felt by the USA. So don't put your trust in others as far National Defence is concern.
Posted on April 29, 2008 00:45
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.