air force tankers
Senior Member
Joined: 11-14-2007
Posts: 1,240
From: Planet Earth
[QUOTE=Snoopy;248802] It seems that Uncle Sam specified certain particulars in the specification when distributing this aircraft for bids.
Boeing submitted an aircraft meeting that criteria, and was not awarded the contract.
The Airbus people submitted a bit OUTSIDE of specifications, and was awarded the contract.
[QUOTE]
FALSE! Northrop Grumman did NOT submit a bid outside the specifications. This was one of the most OPEN and transparent procurements ever done. The Air Force HAD to be completely open based on the Air Force / Boeing fiasco of a year ago (people went to jail).
What you are hearing is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) being put out by Boeing. They are very sore loosers and trying everything to turn it around in their favor. Boeing screwed up, plain and simple. They can and will protest the award, but the Air Force, before making the award, crossed every "t", dotted every "i" and was OPEN, OPEN and OPEN about this particular procurement. There was no "hanky-panky" or back room deals. The Air Force was under a microsope on this procurement because of the "situation" that happened a year ago between an Air Force procurement executive and Boeing.
The scrutiny on this procurement was not like anything seen before in the history of DoD procurements.
Boeing submitted an aircraft meeting that criteria, and was not awarded the contract.
The Airbus people submitted a bit OUTSIDE of specifications, and was awarded the contract.
[QUOTE]
FALSE! Northrop Grumman did NOT submit a bid outside the specifications. This was one of the most OPEN and transparent procurements ever done. The Air Force HAD to be completely open based on the Air Force / Boeing fiasco of a year ago (people went to jail).
What you are hearing is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) being put out by Boeing. They are very sore loosers and trying everything to turn it around in their favor. Boeing screwed up, plain and simple. They can and will protest the award, but the Air Force, before making the award, crossed every "t", dotted every "i" and was OPEN, OPEN and OPEN about this particular procurement. There was no "hanky-panky" or back room deals. The Air Force was under a microsope on this procurement because of the "situation" that happened a year ago between an Air Force procurement executive and Boeing.
The scrutiny on this procurement was not like anything seen before in the history of DoD procurements.
Platinum Member
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting what I read in the local dailey "fish wrap".
If I remember correctly it had something to do with the size specifications. Boeing submitted based on size specification....Northrop based their bid on a completely different size....outside of specification. Again, don't shoot the messenger.
But frankly, I could care less......as long as whatever manufacturer that is chosen, provides the best aircraft possible.
If I remember correctly it had something to do with the size specifications. Boeing submitted based on size specification....Northrop based their bid on a completely different size....outside of specification. Again, don't shoot the messenger.
But frankly, I could care less......as long as whatever manufacturer that is chosen, provides the best aircraft possible.
Senior Member
Joined: 11-14-2007
Posts: 1,240
From: Planet Earth
"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806
"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819
"Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819
Senior Member
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 2,479
From: New Hampsha
I've flown on my share of 135's and yeah....something new is needed in order to meet the cargo requirements that AMC now needs..the 135 is just not practical to carry pallets(well in fairness it wasn't really designed to)
Goose
Goose
Platinum Member
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Resurrecting this because of another recent article.....
Appears that what I reported in the original post IS TRUE and the GAO did NOT award the bid AND is reopening the bid.
In the local daily paper they said it was due to impropriaties by Air Force Officals.
Here's another article if interested.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/bu...tanker.html?hp
Appears that what I reported in the original post IS TRUE and the GAO did NOT award the bid AND is reopening the bid.
In the local daily paper they said it was due to impropriaties by Air Force Officals.
Here's another article if interested.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/bu...tanker.html?hp
Senior Member
Joined: 11-14-2007
Posts: 1,240
From: Planet Earth
It's all about politics. It is soooooooooo sad for our men and women in Blue. The current tankers are 49+ years old. They burn fuel at a rate 4 times faster than the new tanker. Boeing's solution is on the drawing board, NG's solution is flying NOW.
Politics rears its ugly head. The loosers are our fine men and women in the Air Force. The NG solution has tankers flying NOW not two years from now.
Our government leaders should ask the folks actually doing the work what they would like. THEY know what they need NOW.
Very sad day indeed for those defending our nation.
Politics rears its ugly head. The loosers are our fine men and women in the Air Force. The NG solution has tankers flying NOW not two years from now.
Our government leaders should ask the folks actually doing the work what they would like. THEY know what they need NOW.
Very sad day indeed for those defending our nation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pappa_smurf
South Pacific
22
Jun 8, 2011 06:00 AM
