April 06, 2008
The Intrigue of Boeing's Tanker Appeal
While many of the arguments from local Boeing supporters remain depressingly parochial, the process of the GAO review of the Air Force's tanker contract decision-making may offer some interesting details.
Jed Babbin at Human Events examines potential flaws in some of the Air Force's calculations that may have skewed assessments of the comparative mission capability of the competing planes. Interesting.
Likewise, the issue of potentially evolving plane criteria - leaving Boeing in a lurch with the smaller 767 proposal instead of a 777-based design - is also worth watching as the appeal unfolds, regardless of the GAO's ultimate decision.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 06, 2008
02:13 PM | Email This
1. Not all local arguements are overly parochial- Bob Drewel had an excellent op-ed in the Seattle Times last week noting the national, as well as the local, cost of the Air Force decision.
2. " data on each airfield's capacity -- the weight-bearing capacity of runways, taxiways and parking ramps and the size of the parking ramps to base enough aircraft -- so that if any of those aspects was judged adequate, the entire facility was judged capable of having the aircraft operate from it. "
Why does the Air Farce need a specialized software program to figure this out?! I could do this on excel spreadsheet. Just an example of more wasteful spending by the Air Force bureaucracy. I bet they spent $900 on a hammer to get the software to work.
3. I had originally figured that the decision by the Air Force would be difficult to overturn. I figured they would have been very objective in their decision choosing the best air frame for the best cost. I now wonder if this was just about giving jobs to an area in the US that desperately needs them.
Considering:
The air force is buying a bunch of V-22 Ospreys but the EADS plane can't refuel them.
The 767 is more maneuverable under load and is more survivable.
What did the EADS plane excel in? Price?
4. I too will be very interested in the location of the airfields where the Airbus can't operate.
Another question: how long would it take to repair a damaged airfield to get it to the point where it could accept a tanker, given the weight? I would guess repairing the lighter airfield would take a lot less work. Somehow this "time for airfield readiness" should be incorporated too.
5. Looks like the IFARA computer model used to create the justification for the Airbus might have been developed by the same fools who write the runaway positive feedback effects of CO2 in to the Global Warming climate computer models.
As we say in the business, garbage in, garbage out.
6. When you mentioned 'computer models' selecting the best design, I immediately thought of the bogus 'global warming' models.
The reason I am so down on 'computer models' is my own experience and those of my peers as we did our independent research for our Masters degrees. And our individuals research was used to 'plug' into the big model. Whew, considering our quality of research (hey, we were all 'hippies' when we did it) it is no wonder boondoggles like global warming and Boeing contracts are so messed up.
Jeff B above said it so much more concise,though. GIGO.
7. Parochial and depressing though they may be, we Boeing supporters are absolutely right in our arguments. We havent' been just pounding on this issue because we're mad that we may have been beaten by a better plane (which it isnt); or because we know how ignorant people have been about the Boeing plane, but because we feel the process was unfair and deceitful and most importantly; our guys wont' get the best equipment for the job.
8. The AirBass is made by Quasi Communist (workers) that don't like us very much. Gee that sounds like something I want to head into "Harms Way" with. Next time the Marines go shopping for a new fighter plane. Let give those nice folks at the MIG Design Bureau a call. Curtiss LeMay has to be spinning in his grave wondering what happined to his Air Force and his country.
9. In announcing that Northrop Grumman had won the bid, Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton stated unequivocally that there was constant, open communication between her group and the two competitors. Each side had a chance, through multiple steps, to protest or question anything that they felt was going awry in the process. Boeing accepted the playing field as it was and remained silent. In fact, company officials repeatedly praised the openness of the process. It was only after they lost that they found it to be unfair.
Now Boeing is protesting, thereby delaying even further a long overdue upgrade in the nation?s capacity to refuel its warplanes. In a fit of pique, Boeing has decided that petty political infighting takes precedence over the interests of our men and women in uniform.
The Air Force is charged with getting the best bang for its defense bucks, not propping up U.S. manufacturing. And although keeping jobs in their districts is an understandable concern for lawmakers, it shouldn?t factor into the government?s contracting process, especially in defense contracts.
Protecting jobs at all costs could result in higher costs for taxpayers, and possibly even lower quality products as manufacturers realize they don?t have to compete with overseas companies. Boeing and EAD, parent company of Airbus, are two of the few companies in the world making large aircraft capable of being converted to tankers. Cutting out foreign competition would leave Boeing free to charge what it wanted. That?s never a good deal for the taxpayer.
10. but they buy upon credit, both at home and abroad, an unusual
first time lesbian foreign states, and sometimes by the establishment of colonies in hsnrihvjdrj
11. I have 24 yrs as Boeing defense contracts mgr - some expertise on US fed, esp DoD/USAF procurements. worst argument is buy American. not USAFs's job to evaluate domestic/foreign content (unless there is a well-founded national security case). most compelling argumemt is changed acquisition criteria mid-stream (eg 777 vs 767 platform if all they wanted was more gas). let GAO do their homework - they're pretty good 3d party objective non-advocate reviewers. ciao.
12. I have 24 yrs as Boeing defense contracts mgr - some expertise on US fed, esp DoD/USAF procurements. worst argument is buy American. not USAFs's job to evaluate domestic/foreign content (unless there is a well-founded national security case). most compelling argumemt is changed acquisition criteria mid-stream (eg 777 vs 767 platform if all they wanted was more gas). let GAO do their homework - they're pretty good 3d party objective non-advocate reviewers. ciao.
13. I have 24 yrs as Boeing defense contracts mgr - some expertise on US fed, esp DoD/USAF procurements. worst argument is buy American. not USAFs's job to evaluate domestic/foreign content (unless there is a well-founded national security case). most compelling argumemt is changed acquisition criteria mid-stream (eg 777 vs 767 platform if all they wanted was more gas). let GAO do their homework - they're pretty good 3d party objective non-advocate reviewers. ciao.