# Boeing has been awarded the next-generation tanker contract **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 24, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517 "2011-02-24T23:19:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/41 "2011-02-27T07:17:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The terms are fuzzy, yes, and there’s some overlap. But the 135’s primary missions are in-theater (short range),…) Is your knowledge of USAF tanker operations. As was mentioned previously, the tanker replacement competition was botched from the get-go, and all along the way. The acquisition process amounted to a politically motivated exercise in “lather, rinse and repeat until the answer comes up Boeing.” Requirements, technical and support issues took a back seat. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/42 "2011-02-27T17:46:38Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > How about the fact that Department of Defense declared that the Northrop Grumman/EADS team won the contract on technical merit back in February 2008, only to have the decision nixed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in what is almost universally regarded as a politically motivated move to protect Boeing. Almost universally? Really? Where the hell do you get that from? Seriously, where? Try reading [the GAO summary](http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/GAOBoeing.pdf). It wouldn’t have taken any longer than typing that post. Here, I’ll even point you to the money shots: > [@](#): > > 1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation… > 2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to > exceed a key performance parameter…violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration > will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”… > 3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s > determination … > 4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing… > 5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to > a specific solicitation requirement ..was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement. … > 6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ > most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable **, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost;** … (_bolding added_) > 7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering > costs…In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable… If you’re _sincerely_ looking for circumstantial evidence of fraud or corruption, that is as damning an indictment as you’ll find right there, don’tcha think? But such possibilities are the reason for the protest law’s existence. Of course, if you’d rather just join **mhendo** in loose, fact-irrelevant handwaving accusations of corruption, go right ahead. You’re doing fine. > [@](#): > > The later set of requirements,… said, “Must be made in Seattle,” in the RFP. Where in all that bluster is any mention of the validated USAF operational requirements study that led to a smaller aircraft being preferable? Does that mean anything to you? > [@](#): > > Northrop Grumman actually dropped out of the proposal last March because it was clear to everyone involved that the deck was stacked against Northrop, As already explained and ignored, yes, EADS did not have an aircraft as appropriately sized to USAF’s requirements as Boeing. You decline to explain how that is in any way unfair, though. > [@](#): > > The US Aerospace/Antonov proposal was rejected flat out for being “five minutes too late,” which is a complete bullshit sandwich with fries. Not one of USAF’s better moments, that, but that proposal was a bullshit sandwich \*without \*the fries. You can’t really blame USAF for not wanting to waste their time with it. > [@](#): > > This whole acquisition effort is _The Purloined Letter_ of corruption in acquisition; done in such plain sight nobody could believe it was actually being done until it was all over. You really do need to make more of an effort to inform yourself **Nadir** , kindly show us you know the difference between KC-X and KC-Y. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/43 "2011-02-27T18:33:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Of course, if you’d rather just join **mhendo** in loose, fact-irrelevant handwaving accusations of corruption, go right ahead. You’re doing fine. > > Where in all that bluster is any mention of the validated USAF operational requirements study that led to a smaller aircraft being preferable? Does that mean anything to you? There were no requirements in the original proposal favoring a smaller aircraft, and no particular reason why this is operationally preferred for the mission role of this aircraft, which will operate from fields that also support the C-17 and C-130. If you’ve actually reviewed the proposals [which I have] it is notable to see how the requirements changed from the original specifications, which were more general and which the A330-based vehicle was both a lower projected acquisition and maintenance cost and more capable, to the later specifications that very clearly favored the KC-767 to no rationale end. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You really do need to make more of an effort to inform yourself. This is a rather amusing statement given the source. You’ve already demonstrated a lack of comprehension about the roles of the various tanker aircraft in operation and under proposal, and clearly have not actually read any part of the proposals or understand how the specifications laid out in the RFPs changed from phase to phase in order to highlight the KC-767 as the only vehicle that met requirements regardless of actually desired capability. When many Boeing employes who worked the program actually admit that the specs were retailored specifically to favor the KC-767 proposal, it really isn’t much of a stretch to call it a violation of the spirit of fair competition even if it meets the explicit letter of the law with regard to acquisition regulations. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/44 "2011-02-27T20:28:50Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > There were no requirements in the original proposal favoring a smaller aircraft, and no particular reason why this is operationally preferred for the mission role of this aircraft, which will operate from fields that also support the C-17 and C-130. Oh dear. That’s where forward basing, and the number of planes that can be parked on a given ramp at the same time, come into it. So do operating costs. > [@](#): > > If you’ve actually reviewed the proposals [which I have] And not the GAO protest statement. Remarkable. I doubt you’d have done it yet if I only provided you the damn link, instead of the key quotes. > [@](#): > > it is notable to see how the requirements changed from the original specifications, Not so remarkable when you correlate them with the timeline of the program’s politicization by the competition ideologues (led by McCain, who to his credit forced open the corruption of the original lease deal). That resulted in the need to adjust the specs to create an artificially-level competition that Airbus, the only other possible supplier, could find attractive. The warfighter’s operational needs were not a factor in those changes. > [@](#): > > This is a rather amusing statement given the source. You’ve already demonstrated a lack of comprehension about the roles of the various tanker aircraft in operation and under proposal, Okay, you too can help by showing a basic understanding of the difference between KC-X and KC-Y. :rollyes: > [@](#): > > the only vehicle that met requirements regardless of actually desired capability. I’ve mentioned several times how the bid specs resulted from a validated study of operational requirements. If you’d rather irresponsibly and nebulously charge corruption than consider that fact, don’t expect to be taken seriously. This is not the forum for manufactured RO, ya know. > [@](#): > > When many Boeing employes who worked the program actually admit that the specs were retailored specifically to favor the KC-767 proposal Oh, okay, just for yucks: Cite? In context, of course? Apparently you live in Mobile and take Sen. Shelby’s rantings at face value. That’s the only way to grasp your POV, really. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/45 "2011-02-27T22:02:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And not the GAO protest statement. Remarkable. I doubt you’d have done it yet if I only provided you the damn link, instead of the key quotes. Yes, I read the protest statement, which is actually included as an attachment to the revised RFP. However you care to dress it up, Northrop Grumman won the original proposal based upon technical merit, only to have the entire specification for the program revised due to the GAO protest such that the the KC-45 was fundamentally excluded. It is almost universally accepted within the aerospace industry that the competition was grossly unfair; even by Boeing advocates admit that the revised RFP was strongly and deliberately skewed in favor of the KC-767, regardless of merit. This is hardly the first incidence of this, even in recent years–the selection of prime contractor for NASA’s Constellation program was given to the company which had previously spent nearly US$1B on a spaceplane program without developing even a single flight test scale article–but the degree to which the RFP was skewed was brazen even by military acquisition standards. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, you too can help by showing a basic understanding of the difference between KC-X and KC-Y. :rollyes: Glad to help: the KC-X is intended to supplement the aging KC-135 fleet, and in particular the older A variants, which is the mainstay tanker for both long range tactical and strategic aircraft. The KC-X was intended to begin deployment in 2012 and be up to full acquisition of 179 flying units in the 2020 timeframe, although those dates are clearly out the window now. The KC-Y is a followup acquisition for another tanker aircraft (which could just be modernized versions of the aircraft selected for the KC-X proposal, a redesigned version of the KC-X, or a completely new airframe), and is intended to replace the rest of the KC-135A sand KC-10s, as well as some KC-135Rs in inventory as they reach their airframe life limits. The current procurement plan, such as it is, calls for procurement of ~15 KC-Ys a year from 2024-36, with more potential acquisition through ~2050. The KC-Z acquisition is intended to be roughly concurrent with the KC-Y and will provide an eventual replacement for the rest of the KC-135R fleet, providing a somewhat smaller aircraft with less range. The KC-130 is considered the standard “tactical” refueling aircraft by the USMC, and the Navy has used the S-3B Viking and KA-6D Intruder tanker variant for mission or recovery tanking, though it has currently moved to Aerial Fueling System-equipped “buddy tanker” variants of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet to simplify operations and maintenance. The USAF doesn’t maintain any dedicated “tactical tanker” aircraft, though it does use the KC-135A/R for refueling both tactical fighters, tactical bombers, close air support aircraft, surveillance aircraft, and strategic bombers like the B-2 Spirit. Did that give you the basic understanding of the intended roles of the KC-X, -Y, and -Z acquisitions, as well as a little bit of background on the roles of the various tanker aircraft currently in operation by the United States military services? I’d be happy to provide you more detail if you like, or reference you to the appropriate source. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s the only way to grasp your POV, really. And apparently the only way to grasp your point of view is to bend over and shove your head up your ass while screaming “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!” You seem to continue to insist that everyone is supremely ignorant other than yourself regardless of what knowledge or background they may have, even though you have demonstrated your own ignorance about the roles of existing and proposed tanker aircraft. If this is the level of discussion that you are capable of or interested in, count me out. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/46 "2011-02-27T22:34:48Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > However you care to dress it up, Northrop Grumman won the original proposal based upon technical merit Did you read the part about USAF “screwing up” so much they picked the wrong winner? 😃 > [@](#): > > It is almost universally accepted within the aerospace industry that the competition was grossly unfair I already asked you where the hell you get that from. Are you going to support that statement or just continue to bluster? :dubious: > [@](#): > > even by Boeing advocates admit that the revised RFP was strongly and deliberately skewed in favor of the KC-767, regardless of merit. Cite already requested. Still not provided. > [@](#): > > And apparently the only way to grasp your point of view is to bend over and shove your head up your ass while screaming “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!” Says the guy who hasn’t even read the major document related to his charges, and can’t provide even the simplest cite to support his handwaving. That’s a common occurrence on this board, though. > [@](#): > > You seem to continue to insist that everyone is supremely ignorant other than yourself Not everyone, only a couple of you. We both know that no factual support for your loose and irresponsible charges of corruption is forthcoming, so, have a nice day. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/47 "2011-02-27T23:54:38Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > And apparently the only way to grasp your point of view is to bend over and shove your head up your ass while screaming “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!” This is MPSIMS, not the Pit. Dial it back a bit, please. Thanks, **twickster** , MPSIMS mod ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/48 "2011-02-28T00:51:23Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > This is MPSIMS, not the Pit. Dial it back a bit, please. So it is perfectly fine for **ElvisL1ves** to specifically single me out as being ignorant, but not for me to respond in kind? Fuck you. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/49 "2011-02-28T03:57:56Z")
Boeing harbors an ongoing aversion to acceptable behavior in the DoD acquisition and contracting field. They have repeatedly engaged in criminal behavior. They were barred from launch competition and EELV contracts for three years after stealing Lockheed documents. That and the tanker fiasco are the two big ones we know about. The only thing I find particularly remarkable about Boeing considering their inability to field an airframe in a fair and timely manner, is the government’s apparent indifference to their corporate philosophy devoid of integrity. They will most certainly demonstrate these attributes again during execution of the tanker contract(s). It only remains to be seen how painful and deadly it becomes for our airmen. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/50 "2011-02-28T06:43:58Z")
I’m excited! This means my sister may be moving here (she’s an aircraft electronics technician) from Misery (MO :D). ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/51 "2011-02-28T15:45:27Z")
From what I hear from a FOAF(with a security clearance), Boeing has also completely fucked up repeatedly in the spy satellite realm world, but has managed to keep a lot of that out of public view because the work is highly classified. They continue to get contracts in that world because there aren’t many other players in the field who can do the work either. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/52 "2011-03-01T00:44:01Z")
So some of you think Airbus is clean and Boeing is dirty, and the needs of the warfighter and the taxpayer don’t enter into it? It’s really that simple? OK then, in keeping with the simple, invective-based approach, here’s[Frank Gaffney of the Moonie Times:](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/21/scandalous-air-tanker-decision/) > [@](#): > > The answer is not so hard to fathom if you look at the nature of EADS. As the Center for Security Policy documented in a white paper issued in September 2010, the company has relied on devious, unethical and unfair practices to buy into or otherwise win contracts. It has then relied upon massive subventions and/or cost overruns to stay afloat. For example, last June, the World Trade Organization estimated that EADS garnered about $20 billion in illegal subsidies from its European governmental owners. > > Then there are EAD’s endemic problems with bribery and corruption. Eleven years ago, with the company’s Airbus sales in mind, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey told Europeans in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: “Your companies’ products are often more costly, less technologically advanced or both, than your American competitors’. As a result you bribe a lot.” > > In addition, EADS has been under investigation in France for the past five years in connection with alleged insider trading tied, presumably, to the company’s abysmal financial track record. In early February, the Paris judges said they were focusing the investigation on Daimler. In particular, EADS‘ massive cost overruns have gotten so bad lately that the German government has scheduled an emergency summit on Wednesday to discuss bailing out Daimler by nationalizing Daimler’s 7.5 percent stake in EADS. According to the Financial Times, EADS‘ losses cost Daimler 231 million euros in the last year alone. Is that really the kind of company we want the Pentagon to be keeping? That rant doesn’t deserve much attention either, but this thread has become quite unbalanced the other way. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517/53 "2011-03-01T00:51:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So some of you think Airbus is clean and Boeing is dirty, and the needs of the warfighter and the taxpayer don’t enter into it? . I can’t speak for anyone else, but i have never even suggested that Airbus is necessarily clean, nor have i suggested that the needs of the warfighter and the taxpayer are irrelevant. In fact, i made very clear that i recognized that such needs, and the limited number of possible contractors, meant that punishing Boeing as they deserved was impractical. But thanks for playing anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boeing-has-been-awarded-the-next-generation-tanker-contract/572517.md?page=2)