GAO tells AF to reopen Tanker Contract.
06-18-2008 | 10:06 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Thx Age 65
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 21
From: MD11CAP
GAO tells AF to reopen Tanker Contract.
06-18-2008 | 02:08 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
06-18-2008 | 02:35 PM
#5
Sequester bait
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
Likes: 2
From: UH-60, AS-350, C-550
No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement.
NOT that I want a 135 to come apart, though. I know you guys work hard.
06-18-2008 | 03:19 PM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,863
Likes: 658
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
I think they lost their high ground and entitlement to the contract at that point. I'm not wild about airbus getting all the work, but if it convinces boeing that they can't get away with cheating it might be worth it in the long term.
06-18-2008 | 03:46 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: On the Rock
"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s. Nothing against Blackhawks (you guys get a front row seat to the war) but tankers touch a big part of the air war.
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s. Nothing against Blackhawks (you guys get a front row seat to the war) but tankers touch a big part of the air war.
06-18-2008 | 05:20 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: ERJ CA
"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s.
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s.
Besides, the -10 fills in just fine.
Tho I agree, the government should buy American whenever possible. EADS gets enough subsidies from the euro governments, it shouldn't get any from ours.
06-18-2008 | 05:31 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
I wonder how much of the Air Force's mistakes on this latest round of bidding, contributed to the departure of the top two last week? I wonder if once the facts started to come out, inside the Pentagon, that might have been the straw that broke the camels back? It will be interesting to read the full detailed report from the GAO.
Anyone know if it's on the web yet? I couldn't find it. (Did not look that hard, either)
I think this whole tanker fiasco should be under that other thread in this forum of "Air Force Waste"!
I can hear EADS now...."Merde! Merde! Merde!"
Anyone know if it's on the web yet? I couldn't find it. (Did not look that hard, either)
I think this whole tanker fiasco should be under that other thread in this forum of "Air Force Waste"!
I can hear EADS now...."Merde! Merde! Merde!"
06-18-2008 | 06:20 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
Beat me to it...the Marine KC-130s can take care of our own jets...thank you very much!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
