Skull6

There are no saints to be found in this mess. Yes, I can see the American taxpayers funding both A/C, at a higher cost than if only one of the biddrs had won.

The silver lining is that the USAF will have two new tankers--one smaller & one larger. One can do the large-volume hauling, the other can perform more of the smaller refueling missions. No, it's certainly not perfect. But again, There are no saints to be found in this mess. Even the USAF isn't smelling of roses in this affair...

__________________
If you know the enemy and yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. - Sun Tzu

LetsTalk

McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs
Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:41 PM ET Jun 21, 2008

One of John McCain's most celebrated achievements in recent years was his crusade to block a Pentagon contract with Boeing for a new fleet of midair refueling tankers. Incensed over what he denounced as a taxpayer "rip-off," McCain launched a Senate probe that uncovered cozy relations between top Air Force officials and Boeing execs. A top Air Force officer and Boeing's CFO ended up in prison. Most significantly, the Air Force was forced to cancel the contract—saving taxpayers more than $6 billion, McCain asserted.

But last week, McCain's subsequent effort to redo the tanker deal was dealt a setback. Government auditors ruled that the Air Force made "significant errors" when it rebid the contract and awarded the $35 billion project to Boeing's chief rival, partners European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (or EADS) and Northrop Grumman. It's likely the Air Force will have to redo the bid yet again, which analysts say will delay the replacement of the fleet's 1950s-era refueling tankers. The auditors' ruling has also cast light on an overlooked aspect of McCain's crusade: five of his campaign's top advisers and fund-raisers—including Tom Loeffler, who resigned last month as his finance co-chairman, and Susan Nelson, his finance director—were registered lobbyists for EADS.

Critics, including some at the Pentagon, cite in particular two tough letters McCain wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in 2006 and another to Robert Gates, just prior to his confirmation as Defense secretary. In the first letter, dated Sept. 8, 2006, McCain wrote of hearing from "third parties" that the Air Force was about to redo the tanker competition by factoring in European government subsidies to EADS—a condition that could have seriously hurt the EADS bid. McCain urged that the Pentagon drop the subsidy factor and posed a series of technical questions about the Air Force's process. "He was trying to jam us and bully us to make sure there was competition by giving EADS an advantage," said one senior Pentagon official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a politically sensitive matter. The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said. (A Loeffler associate noted that he and Nelson were retained by EADS after the letters were drafted.)

Chris Paul, who serves as McCain's top aide on the issue, wrote in an e-mail to NEWSWEEK that "the letters … were absolutely not provided, or drafted, by EADS or Northrop Grumman or … submitted on their behalf. Those letters arose from, and reflect, Senator McCain's longstanding interest in … full and open competition." The campaign would not allow Paul to answer follow-up questions about whether McCain had input from EADS lobbyists on the letters or about the identity of the "third parties." McCain said last week his "paramount concern" was "that the Air Force buy the most capable aerial refueling tankers at the most reasonable cost." But some defense analysts say the controversy over the Air Force rebid—and the higher costs that will result—have taken some of the shine off McCain's efforts. "This shows how a sort of naive crusade for good government can actually backfire," said Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank.

URL: Military: McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com

Chunder

Thompson has largely discredited himself over the tanker isse, he's flip flopped so many times it's hard to keep track of him. He certainly doesn't call it straight, Leeham News & comment is more consistent with an approach.

Thompson has come under extrreme pressure from very powerful people wanting to know how he was able to call the Tanker contract in advance, and ever since then he's been pumping out questionable stuff.

The USAF seems to have slipped up on technicalities. Of the numerous complaints Boeing filed, the GAO upheld a very small amount, *spray and pray* worke for Boeing.

But lets be honest. In the context of a report, just what could have Boeing done to affect the outcome of the decision in reality? On hearing the A330 may be better (and lets face it, it is in so many respects) What was Boeing going to do? Go design a 777 tanker, or even a 787 tanker? It barely even started, nor was interested given the production que of both aircraft. Moreover the USAF would have to wait for a very long time for any produced aircraft.

The Airforce released it's own redacted version of it's submittal to the GAO which is equally if not more Damning of Boeing's conduct. All of this does nothing to change the fact that you just can't manufacture some components from various models, slap them together and then get them certified instantly. It's going to take 3 or more years (most likely more) before Boeing is at the stage of the A-330 now. And that translates into significant R&D, costs, compliance and manufacturing issues that although come on stream, will take significant time. Boeing despite manufacturing over 500 plus KC 135's, still hasn't fixed the problems in relation to the Japanese and Italian kc767's, despite all it's "Touted experience" which it seems to believe is proof in the pudding that it won't have any problems whatsoever in a completely new version of the 767. Even if it didn't it's still years behind, years behind that the airforce has to pay for, and operate KC-135's.

All Boeing can say is that the A330 burns more fuel than an 767 (well no ****, it carries more, is Boeing dumb, surely it knows the rules of thermal energy) and weighs more (No **** it carries more) And points to runway availability problems - which isn't an issue according to the Airforce. Then if it's not that, it's Hangar space.

Woopty do, the airforce may need to build some new hangars. Hey, guess what, it might have a spot for all those BOEING C-17's it's received but didn't want through congressional subsidies, and C-5's at last for maintenance. Who would have thought that we might have to build infrastructure which was last changed to suit in the 1950's? IF the A330 doesn't fit anyway.

All of this completely overlooks the greater pallett load and fuel efficiency of the A-330 over the C-17, and hence significant savings for the Airforce and life cycle improvement at a time where deployment is of significant issue to using up projected airframe life. At roughly the same price as a 767. (Of course at only a marginally more fuel cost than the 767, which can't carry nearly anywhere near as much.