Air Force Generals wanted the Airbus????
 

I was surprised to read this kind of letter. These Generals are accusing Boeing of some pretty bad stuff. I still cant believe they chose the airbus, but i guess when it comes down to it, cost is everything.



------------------------------------------------------------------


March 31, 2008
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000


Dear Secretary Gates:


U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft are critical to joint U.S. power projection capabilities. The backbone of the current tanker fleet — the KC-135s — average 47 years of age, and must be replaced as expeditiously as possible.
We, the undersigned, have devoted years of service and sacrifice to this great nation and the United States Air Force. Accordingly, we are very troubled by the vitriolic attack on the Air Force by those who disagree with the outcome of the KC-45 Tanker competition.
From an objective perspective, the Air Force is prevented from using U.S. industrial base issues, U.S. employment issues and U.S. component content issues in making decisions about weapons systems. By law and by directive, they must consider which system gives best value for our Warfighters. But despite those facts, the Air Force is being attacked by Boeing and their special interests clients by:

• Impugning the integrity of OUR Air Force in the conduct of the KC-45 source selection

• Claiming OUR Air Force abandoned the interests of America and the American people during the selection process

• Questioning the patriotism of the men and women of OUR Air Force

• Claiming there is a problem with manufacturing by not-to-be-trusted foreign nationals, when all military modifications made to the aircraft will be done by Northrop Grumman under the strict standards of the Air Force — a fact Boeing supporters fully understand

We are unwavering in our support of the military and civilian members of the Air Force team, and know that they embody a commitment to integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all they do. The Air Force team rightly focused on delivering the most capability to the Warfighter — and their integrity, honor, and truthfulness should not be denigrated without factual information to the contrary, by those serving other interests.
Delays in the tanker program will only serve to put the lives of crews flying these aging systems in greater jeopardy. We fully support the Air Force in its desire to provide the best and most capable tanker to our Warfighters, and urge you to continue to stand up and help defend them from scurrilous and politically motivated attacks that have no basis in the source selection criteria for our next tanker.
Michael E. Ryan
Gen, USAF (Ret)
Ronald W. Yates
Gen, USAF (Ret)
Thomas McInerney
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
Walter Kross
Gen, USAF (Ret)
Leroy Barnidge, Jr.
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
Silas R. Johnson, Jr.
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
David A. Nagy
Brig Gen, USAF (Ret)
Charles A. Horner
Gen, USAF (Ret)
Richard E. Hawley
Gen, USAF (Ret)
John W. Hawley
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
Robert C. Hinson
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
Dr. George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
John D. Becker
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
Timothy J. McMahon
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
William J. Jabour
Brig Gen, USAF (Ret)
Gregory S. Martin
Gen, USAF (Ret)
Robert F. Raggio
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
Charles H. Coolidge, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
Everett H. Pratt, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)
William Welser, III
Lt. Gen, USAF (Ret)
John W. Brooks
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
Timothy A. Peppe
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

And then again, maybe they know more than the average poge and maybe they agree that the superior airplane won the contract and maybe they are not parochial and maybe they put the best interest of the country in front of jingoistic rhetoric. Maybe....

thats a pretty idealistic thought, but if the airbus contract wasn't $25 million cheaper, it wouldn't have won.

I may be wrong, but I think there was an article on AFTimes.com yesterday that stated that most or all of these former officers are employed as lobbyists for either Northrop-Grumman or EADS. That said, yes, AF generals did want the KC-30. It was Air Force senior leadership that decided the KC-30 was the winner, and SecAF has backed that choice. Ghilis, I'm not sure that the EADS/Northrop bid was much cheaper, but it did offer more capability for roughly the same price. The best analogy I've seen is that the AF "went shopping for a Ford Explorer, and wound up with a Range Rover for the same price. Personally, I think that the AF would have been foolish to pick the Boeing, and I grew up in Seattle and I prefer the more pilot oriented Boeings. But you really can't argue with more capability for the same price.

yea but they ended up with a 1992 Range Rover... granted thats due to the process and all airplanes are old technology and on the verge of being obsolete before they even get to the ramp... but whats the point of all that capability? Slightly better range, fuel economy, payload? If they wanted that, they should have asked for that in the Bid proposal (B-777 Tanker would have blown both of those airplanes out of the water, but its way too big, too capable and too expensive for a 135 replacement).

It still comes down to cost. If the A330 came in at a much higher cost than the 767, the Air Force would have said, "we dont need all those bells and whistles" and it would have been an easy choice. It ALWAYS comes down to the bottom line. Yes, I agree with you, they are getting more airplane for the money. But you gotta be careful what you wish for.

On a totally different note, Im going to guess that receiver A/R in the R/T version of the A330 will be nothing short of a nightmare, along with training new Co-Pilots in an airplane where you cant "ride" the controls as an instructor, you can essentially only take over with that sidestick priority logic.

Good point...didn't even think of that!

I must assume then that you have iside information of a kick back or some skullduggery going on with the selection for the selection group to buy the worse of the two.

Also, fwiw, the 767 offered by Boeing was not the one sold to Japan or Italy but a cobbled together machine sometimes referred to as "Frankentanker"

A cartoon for your consumption.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/liem/2224074677/

article
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...daybuzz27.html

Gee.. wonder how all those airlines got their F/Os checked out with that flaw?

yeah, along with F-16 pilots and their sidestick. or what about c-17 pilots and their 'fancy' fly by wire.

I would have loved to see a Boeing product in this role as much as anyone, but they blew it with the underhanded dealings the first time around. Then having lost the high ground, they didn't seem to listen to what the AF wanted. I wouldn't feel too bad about it...hopefully they learned some lessons for next time.