Administration and USAF skirted Aquistion procedures for $100 billion Tanker Contract

[tnitsuj]

from Washingtonpost.com


I Like this part:

Tankers and Partners

The idea of converting 767s into tankers surfaced formally in February 2001, when Boeing proposed to convert 36 planes and sell them to the Air Force for $124.5 million each. The unsolicited bid was undercut by an Air Force study the same month -- drafted by a consulting arm of Boeing -- concluding that existing Air Force KC-135 tankers would be "viable through the year 2040" and that no new planes need be bought until after 2010.

Many existing tankers have flown only a third of their planned lifetime, the study pointed out, and have averaged 12.5 days of flight a year. A separate Air Force study in 2000 concluded that corrosion, a growing problem in aging tankers, was manageable if watched carefully and aggressively repaired. After Boeing made its proposal for new tankers, Roche called both studies flawed.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Boeing pressed the idea with new vigor. Airlines had deferred commercial orders for 767s, and Boeing laid off thousands of employees at plants in Everett, Wash. But the Air Force had not even listed tankers among its "unfunded priorities" in 2001, a multibillion-dollar wish list of weapons it wanted but could not afford.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.

CkG

Thier is plenty of blame to go around, but this article shows clearly how the White House went out of its way to push this deal and is continuing to do so. Andy Card himself admitted it, with personal intervention by the President to help smooth things over.

BTW: the Pentagon and the civillian leadership there of which the Secrartary of the Air Force is part of is most certainly part of the administration. That would make them responsible, they are the people who originated this deal wit Boeing.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.
CkG

You do know that USAF reports to Bush, don't you? He is ultimately responsible for what the military does as commander in chief.

 

[tnitsuj]

Cads defenition of Administration changes depending on whether the news is good or bad, even though in this case it is clear that the president personally intervened in this matter.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Hassert - Speaker of the House, Republican leader, Boeing moved their Headquarters to Chicago to gain favor.
Norm Dicks, HOuse of Reprehensibles, Democrat, Washington State, dosen't want to lose a Cash Cow and
face the voters wrath on Washington State.

Boeing has already anounced that they are going to shut down their 757 Production Line, and has already
shut down one of their major Assembly Plants there, after closing the Douglas-Long Beach Facilities that they
obtained when they bought oot McDonnell-Douglas, they didn't want to compete with that facility.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.

CkG

What?! No reference to Daschle's wife? You're slipping, Cad...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.
CkG

You do know that USAF reports to Bush, don't you? He is ultimately responsible for what the military does as commander in chief.

You do know that he doesn't take part in all the dealings and that he told them to resolve their differences, right?

You know - if some military person steps on a flower that Bush is ultimately responsible for what the military does, since he is commander in chief.

Your logic is astounding SuperTool - what other knowledge can you enlighten us with.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.

CkG

What?! No reference to Daschle's wife? You're slipping, Cad...

No, not slipping - just waiting It wasn't time to play that card yet.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.
CkG

You do know that USAF reports to Bush, don't you? He is ultimately responsible for what the military does as commander in chief.

You do know that he doesn't take part in all the dealings and that he told them to resolve their differences, right?

You know - if some military person steps on a flower that Bush is ultimately responsible for what the military does, since he is commander in chief.

Your logic is astounding SuperTool - what other knowledge can you enlighten us with.

CkG

This is a little different from some pfc making a mistake somewhere. This is a $100 billion dollar aquisition, which has attention at the highest levels.

Resolve thier differences = make the deal go through, unless you have some other translation for that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.
CkG

You do know that USAF reports to Bush, don't you? He is ultimately responsible for what the military does as commander in chief.

You do know that he doesn't take part in all the dealings and that he told them to resolve their differences, right?

You know - if some military person steps on a flower that Bush is ultimately responsible for what the military does, since he is commander in chief.

Your logic is astounding SuperTool - what other knowledge can you enlighten us with.

CkG

This is a little different from some pfc making a mistake somewhere. This is a $100 billion dollar aquisition, which has attention at the highest levels.

Resolve thier differences = make the deal go through, unless you have some other translation for that.

Yeah, and? Did we need the planes? Yes. He wanted to have the plane deal go through - to equate that with him telling them to waste money is not true. I think that those who were negotiating this contract should have known better than to waste the money and should be held responsible. As DealMonkey pointed out - it was going to be a merry X-mas at the Daschle household...but we'll see if the size of her bonus changes

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep -It sure is easy to blame the Administration. Don't blame the people responsible for this Irresponsible tanker deal.

It's pure waste- and Boeing and it's lobbists knew it and so did the USAF. Digusting.
CkG

You do know that USAF reports to Bush, don't you? He is ultimately responsible for what the military does as commander in chief.

You do know that he doesn't take part in all the dealings and that he told them to resolve their differences, right?

You know - if some military person steps on a flower that Bush is ultimately responsible for what the military does, since he is commander in chief.

Your logic is astounding SuperTool - what other knowledge can you enlighten us with.

CkG

Hey, If Bush is too important to make sure those who report to him don't waste billions of taxpayer money, we need to replace him with someone who does.
I don't think it's too much to ask that a president who displays such concern over high taxes also display same concern for wasteful spending in his own military. I could see if he was unaware of the situation, but now that it has been brought up, he needs to deal with it and make sure the taxpayer moneys are spent in a responsible manner. But his ignorance of military and government waste on such an enormous scale puts into question his ability to effectively lead the military or the government.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, and? Did we need the planes? Yes. He wanted to have the plane deal go through - to equate that with him telling them to waste money is not true. I think that those who were negotiating this contract should have known better than to waste the money and should be held responsible. As DealMonkey pointed out - it was going to be a merry X-mas at the Daschle household...but we'll see if the size of her bonus changes CkG

"Did we need the planes?" Uh, read the article - no. There was no need for the planes - a study done by Boeing contractors said so. The current KC-135 fleet is good till 2040, apparantly.

Maybe the jobs were needed more than the planes, though, which would make this a good old fashioned government subsidy pure and simple.

The US gov is doing boeing a huge favour here, which is fine, i can understand that. Doesn't seem quite right that Boeing will make such a huge profit off the deal though.

 

[dpm]

Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones

[/b]

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

 

[CaptnKirk]

This deserves a bump today.
More info is out on the 'Behind the scenes' deals -
(From the New York Times)
True Belivers

Congressional Republicans need to schedule a meeting with the mirror this morning. The agenda item is their soul, and the questions to be addressed are: Why did I run for Congress? Was it to engage in the same pork barrel politics that marked the last decadent days of the Democratic majority?

The occasion for this meeting is Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just shady ? it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. It's as if somebody spent years trying to gather every single sleazy aspect of modern Washington and cram it all into one legislative effort.

It's sort of awe-inspiring when you stop to think about it.

Under the deal, the U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing 767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation. There are intelligent people in Washington who believe the U.S. needs a new fleet of tankers, to refuel jets over places like Afghanistan. But the details of this particular deal have been shredded by the murderer's row of green-eyeshade, independent-auditor acronym organizations: the O.M.B., the C.B.O., the G.A.O., the C.R.S. and the I.D.A.

The main critique is that it is ridiculously expensive to lease planes, rather than buy them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days.

But the content of the legislation is as pure as the driven snow, compared with the way it has been pushed through Washington. The chief Air Force official pushing the deal was Darleen Druyun. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, Druyun has recently left the Air Force and gone to work for Boeing. She sold her $692,000 northern Virginia home to a Boeing lawyer. Her daughter works for Boeing. None of this may be illegal or even wrong, but is this what makes you proud to be an American?

This is a major contract, but there was no big competition. There was no big study of alternative ways to modernize the fleet. According to U.S. News & World Report (this process has been like a full employment act for investigative journalists) Boeing was given the unusual opportunity to help define the specifications for the plane. Recently released e-mail suggests that some Air Force officials worked intimately with Boeing officials, sometimes to rebut criticisms from other Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska went around the normal committee process and inserted the deal into a defense appropriations bill during a closed meeting of conferees. According to The Post, in the month before he made that move, Stevens received political contributions from 31 Boeing executives at a fund-raiser in Seattle.

Two Republicans, John McCain and Phil Gramm, fought this thing from the start. The conservative columnist Robert Novak condemned it.

So Boeing rallied the lobbyists. Senators from Kansas and Washington, the states that stand to benefit, began lobbying. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. kicked in, with unions running ads against McCain. And crucially, Dennis Hastert lobbied the White House.

In recent days Senator John Warner has moved to minimize the travesty. He has pushed a deal that would have the Air Force lease only 20 planes, and purchase, less expensively, the other 80.

But there are larger issues. First, this whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing. Maybe it's time to stop trying to run a Bush foreign policy on a Clinton defense budget?

More broadly, this Republican majority is beginning to lose the idealism of youth and settle for the spoils of middle age. John Kasich used to rail against corporate welfare. Has that fire burned out entirely?

If this deal goes through, it will be a sign that all those fine young crusaders who campaign as fearless fighters against the ways of Washington are slowly but corrosively turning into the sort of creatures they despise.

It almost makes one miss Newt Gingrich.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

NO. We need to use the planes we got while they have decades of service life left in them. This is public money paying for these planes. We paid for the KC-135, we expect to get full use out of them before we have to pay to replace them, just like we are getting full use out of B-52s. For the missions that KC-135 can't fulfill, buy a few kc-767's. But to replace all KC-135's on taxpayer buck while the country is in a huge deficit and these planes still have decades of usable life left in them is a travesty. To lease them even though it's cheaper to buy is another travesty. If the same republicans who complain about taxes all day long weren't hypocrites, they would complain about this wasteful spending. Hastert, the GOP house leader is first in line to waste taxpayer's money, and Bush is doing nothing to stop his Airforce people from pushing it through, which shows you where the GOP stands on wasteful spending.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

NO. We need to use the planes we got while they have decades of service life left in them. This is public money paying for these planes. We paid for the KC-135, we expect to get full use out of them before we have to pay to replace them, just like we are getting full use out of B-52s. For the missions that KC-135 can't fulfill, buy a few kc-767's. But to replace all KC-135's on taxpayer buck while the country is in a huge deficit and these planes still have decades of usable life left in them is a travesty. To lease them even though it's cheaper to buy is another travesty. If the same republicans who complain about taxes all day long weren't hypocrites, they would complain about this wasteful spending. Hastert, the GOP house leader is first in line to waste taxpayer's money, and Bush is doing nothing to stop his Airforce people from pushing it through, which shows you where the GOP stands on wasteful spending.

It is easier to rationalize keeping the B-52 in flight as, there is no b-52 production facility. The same cannot be said for the 767. The 767 will have significant commercial support today and in the future.
A kc-767 would easily save money in the future(fewer planes, less training, less maintance, more flexible)


The deal does need to be better, we wont argue that.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

NO. We need to use the planes we got while they have decades of service life left in them. This is public money paying for these planes. We paid for the KC-135, we expect to get full use out of them before we have to pay to replace them, just like we are getting full use out of B-52s. For the missions that KC-135 can't fulfill, buy a few kc-767's. But to replace all KC-135's on taxpayer buck while the country is in a huge deficit and these planes still have decades of usable life left in them is a travesty. To lease them even though it's cheaper to buy is another travesty. If the same republicans who complain about taxes all day long weren't hypocrites, they would complain about this wasteful spending. Hastert, the GOP house leader is first in line to waste taxpayer's money, and Bush is doing nothing to stop his Airforce people from pushing it through, which shows you where the GOP stands on wasteful spending.

It is easier to rationalize keeping the B-52 in flight as, there is no b-52 production facility. The same cannot be said for the 767. The 767 will have significant commercial support today and in the future.
A kc-767 would easily save money in the future(fewer planes, less training, less maintance, more flexible)


The deal does need to be better, we wont argue that.

Just like B-2 saved money, like the Space Shuttle saved money, etc. All these money saving promises usually don't fan out.
We have a tanker, we keep it until it's usable life is over. That's all there is. I don't go to work every day and pay taxes, so that USAF unnecessarily replaces working planes with new expensive ones just to subsidise Boeing.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

NO. We need to use the planes we got while they have decades of service life left in them. This is public money paying for these planes. We paid for the KC-135, we expect to get full use out of them before we have to pay to replace them, just like we are getting full use out of B-52s. For the missions that KC-135 can't fulfill, buy a few kc-767's. But to replace all KC-135's on taxpayer buck while the country is in a huge deficit and these planes still have decades of usable life left in them is a travesty. To lease them even though it's cheaper to buy is another travesty. If the same republicans who complain about taxes all day long weren't hypocrites, they would complain about this wasteful spending. Hastert, the GOP house leader is first in line to waste taxpayer's money, and Bush is doing nothing to stop his Airforce people from pushing it through, which shows you where the GOP stands on wasteful spending.

It is easier to rationalize keeping the B-52 in flight as, there is no b-52 production facility. The same cannot be said for the 767. The 767 will have significant commercial support today and in the future.
A kc-767 would easily save money in the future(fewer planes, less training, less maintance, more flexible)


The deal does need to be better, we wont argue that.

Just like B-2 saved money, like the Space Shuttle saved money, etc. All these money saving promises usually don't fan out.
We have a tanker, we keep it until it's usable life is over. That's all there is. I don't go to work every day and pay taxes, so that USAF unnecessarily replaces working planes with new expensive ones just to subsidise Boeing.

Ok, your right. There is no need to reduce the tanker fleet by 20-30%. We will just keep 550 kc-135s so we can have 400 in the air at any given time.

And I could probably argue that the b-2 is saving money, granted i think a more cost sensitive version could easily replace the buff.

ANd the shuttle needs to scuttled.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dpm
Jesus - from the article;

In November 2001, the Air Force drafted a document spelling out what capabilities the new tankers must have. Col. Mark Donohue, an official in the air mobility office, promptly sent it to Boeing for private comment, and the company sought, and received, concessions so the requirements matched what the 767 could do. <STRONG>The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones [/b]

</STRONG>

Well 767 would greatly exceed the kc-135s they intend to replace. They would not exceed the bigger kc-10s. There are far more kc-135s than kc-10s and the kc-10s are only about 20 years old, where the kc-135s average over 40 years old.

Yes, but in total airframe time all of those tankers are Very Very low in comparison to thier civillian counterparts and have recieved much more phase and depot maintenance. Military aircraft easily exceed the service lifespan of thier civillian counterparts due to thier low flight hours.

You also have to realize that the KC-135's and KC-10's are largely devoid of composite structures a major reason why older aircraft in the military fleet such as the F-15s are hugely expensive to maintain. It is very feasible to modernize those aircraft and keep them running as was stated in BOEINGS OWN REPORT.

Of corse now that commercial sales are down, those planes are trash and we need new 767 tankers.

something smells here.

But also realize the kc-135s are experiencing lower mission capable rates and more days at depot.
Also realize that a kc-767 can carry 20% more fuel at longer distances.
The kc-767 has 3x the pallet space.
The kc-767 needs a runway 4000 feet shorter.
The kc-767 will be able to refuel all Nato aircraft, the kc-135 cannot.

Retrofiting a kc-135 will not likely bring its capabilities to this level. One has to ask the question, would the cost of long term maintance be better spent on a new platform.

NO. We need to use the planes we got while they have decades of service life left in them. This is public money paying for these planes. We paid for the KC-135, we expect to get full use out of them before we have to pay to replace them, just like we are getting full use out of B-52s. For the missions that KC-135 can't fulfill, buy a few kc-767's. But to replace all KC-135's on taxpayer buck while the country is in a huge deficit and these planes still have decades of usable life left in them is a travesty. To lease them even though it's cheaper to buy is another travesty. If the same republicans who complain about taxes all day long weren't hypocrites, they would complain about this wasteful spending. Hastert, the GOP house leader is first in line to waste taxpayer's money, and Bush is doing nothing to stop his Airforce people from pushing it through, which shows you where the GOP stands on wasteful spending.

It is easier to rationalize keeping the B-52 in flight as, there is no b-52 production facility. The same cannot be said for the 767. The 767 will have significant commercial support today and in the future.
A kc-767 would easily save money in the future(fewer planes, less training, less maintance, more flexible)


The deal does need to be better, we wont argue that.

Just like B-2 saved money, like the Space Shuttle saved money, etc. All these money saving promises usually don't fan out.
We have a tanker, we keep it until it's usable life is over. That's all there is. I don't go to work every day and pay taxes, so that USAF unnecessarily replaces working planes with new expensive ones just to subsidise Boeing.

Ok, your right. There is no need to reduce the tanker fleet by 20-30%. We will just keep 550 kc-135s so we can have 400 in the air at any given time.

And I could probably argue that the b-2 is saving money, granted i think a more cost sensitive version could easily replace the buff.

ANd the shuttle needs to scuttled.

Well according to the independant studies before Boeing started turning the screws it wasn't a pressing priority.

You can argue all you want about the 767 being more cost effictive and efficient in some ways, but the fact is that the Air Force has done no studies of this issue that apparently weren't aimed at selling the Boeing deal, and every single independant entity across the board has said that the entire project needs to be studied more and is a bad deal to boot.

As to reducing the tanker fleet overall size ANG/AFRC/Active that is another issue that needs to be studied more. I am not an expert on the needs of the future air force, but it is apparent that the supposed experts and guardians of the public treasure have been woefully negligent on this point.

Priorities and limited resources need to be considered here. It was such a big deal, they would have asked for it prior to the slump in commercial airliner sales.

The circumstances make the entire deal suspect, not just the cost, but the neccessity and timing. Cost Benefit in its most classic sense.

 

[charrison]

STATEMENT BY
DR. MARVIN SAMBUR
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE (ACQUISITION)

BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBSTANCE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE AIR FORCE TANKER LEASE PROPOSAL

JULY 23, 2003

...


The degradation of our current tanker fleet is accelerating beyond our original projections. Using the FY02 legislation to evaluate leasing tanker aircraft, our report shows that we can lease and deliver KC-767 tankers 5 years sooner than a normal procurement program. While this lease will cost slightly more from a net present value analysis than a normal procurement program, the benefits greatly offset the financial disadvantages. In order to purchase these aircraft on the same schedule, we would need $5B MORE funding in the Air Force account through FY06 and more than $11B more across the FYDP. This is money that the Air Force doesn?t have and is not programmed for -- and would result in significant impacts and delays to our other modernization programs. The KC-135 fleet has served the Air Force well for over 40 years, and it is time to begin the recapitalization. Given current DoD and USAF budget projections and constraints, recapitalization of the KC-135 fleet (544 aircraft) will take between 30 and 40 years.


...

Today, a single 43-year old aircraft type, the KC-135, supports ninety percent of our combat air refueling capability. Beginning manufacture under the Eisenhower administration, 732 KC-135s entered military service between 1957 and 1965. The remaining 544 KC-135s on duty today have the oldest average fleet age of any Air Force combat aircraft.

...

The cost of continuing to operate the existing KC-135 air-refueling force will continue to escalate dramatically. Corrosion, major structural repairs, and an increased rate of inspection are major drivers for increased cost and time spent in depot. This also directly decreases operational aircraft availability. Operational availability is expected to continue to decrease throughout the remainder of the KC-135?s lifespan. Snowballing signs of aging are evident today. Under these conditions of accelerating costs and steadily declining availability and performance, combined with the increasing operational demands, actions to replace the KC-135 must begin now.

...

Through the 1990s, the KC-135 fleet started to show its age. In 1991, Air Force Materiel Command initiated aging aircraft inspections and repairs to maintain the airworthiness of this geriatric fleet. By 2000, 32% of the KC-135 fleet (29% of the entire Air Force refueling capability) was unavailable due to depot level maintenance as the number and complexity of repairs drastically increased. This reduced the refueling capability of our warfighters and caused a backlog at the depot facilities, as the average number of days in depot-level maintenance peaked at over 400 days.

...

The lease not only advances the first delivery by three years, it puts the 100 aircraft fleet at the disposal of our frontline commanders for combat operations by FY11, five years ahead of the planned purchase. If we were to purchase these aircraft in a traditional buy on the same delivery schedule, while maintaining our financial top-line, we would have to take billions of dollars out of other important programs.




Linkage
It appears the air force has been doing studys...