Boeing getting their way and raping us for $35 billion
 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/nor...ex.html?hpt=T2

After Northrop WON the contract in the USAF tanker replacement program after Boeing's ridiculous proposal that would have ended up costing the tax payers, government, and USAF billions and made a few individuals, including the two senators they have in their pocket, hundreds of millions of dollars each, the government decided that that wasn't ok, and changed the scope of the contract after the fact in Boeing's favor, and took away the winning bid from Northrop. Get ready for a $35 billion assraping!

edit- Oh wait! $35 billion was the CHEAP bid Northrop won! Now that there are no other bidders for the contract and Boeing will get it, can't wait to see what that number turns into!

As the saying goes..... its not who you know its who you blow!

Interesting take on the decision, I know others that are happy with the decision. (Airbus has a history of budget overruns?)

I'm sure Boeing is, they'll be making more on this deal as profit than if they sold ten times as many to a commercial outfit. And they're not selling them to the USAF, they're 'leasing' them. USAF doesn't get to keep them.

Exactly. Two senators, and the General who was overseeing the program for the USAF coincidentally retired just before the first bid, and is now the program director for the tanker replacement program... for Boeing.

I don't see what your problem is with anything?....


The airforce kept changing their specifications that they wanted throughout the entire design phase of the competition. Boeing filed a complaint because they thought the competition was handled poorly and should be re-evaluated. A single republican senator from guess where, Alabama, was quoted as saying the entire competition was devised so that Boeing could win... even though Boeing had originally lost.

The second quote says that it's a disaster for the American tax payer... how? After restructuring the program with further design details Northrop realized they weren't fit for the job and did not resubmit their application. Would you have preferred they designed our tankers only to find that they were unfit for the job half way through?

Protesting a contract agreement is not uncommon.,.. "And in recent years, the GAO has increasingly sided with protesting contractors in all federal departments. GAO statistics show 16 percent of protesters won in 2002, 17 percent in 2003, 21 percent in 2004, 23 percent in 2005 and 29 percent 2006."


Posts without research is why political threads get out of hand anyways.

It all started with two sentors, a General, and the head of Boeing. The plan was to offer a tanker replacement scheme to replace the old KC-135 and KC-10. The deal however was designed to line the pockets of Boeing and the original creators of the plan. The reason this has taken over ten years is that a lot of people in various positions recognize how this plan is designed only to make Boeing an asston of money. Northrop came along and offered a reasonable, fair, balanced, and cost effective way to solve the USAF tanker fleet replacement issue. They were going to partner with Airbus, build a new production plant in the US, and sell the aircraft to the USAF for the fleet. Makes sense right? Well for quadruple the money, Boeing was going to offer this: build 767s for the contract, 'lease' them to the USAF for a final cost significantly higher than if they just sold them to the USAF, have a lease end charge when the term was up, Boeing would then sell those planes to a private or commercial buyer, the buyer would submit schematics for exactly how they wanted the plane outfitted for their use (passengers, cargo, etc.), and the USAF would have to pay to get the planes reoutfitted for a cost of several million per plane. So in the end, the taxpayers via the USAF get assraped on a deal where if Boeing just sold them to the USAF for regular cost it would make sense, instead, the tanker lease deal ends up costing something like 4-6x more, and it all goes to profit for Boeing since they're doing nothing more in the deal any differently than if they would just be selling them. And Northrop isn't going to resubmit a bid as the changes in the Statement of Work were done to specify differences in the two airframes to word it in such a way that Boeing would be the only competitor ...on paper. If you don't think the gov does stuff like that, then let me promise you that I've personally been told to do so when I was in charge of writing up SOWs for the gov on large contracts.

Yup, tis how things are... rents complain about it every once in awhile... being "asked" to buy from a factory that is making a part you don't even plan on using etc... and hence, big govt, should not run anything... :lol:

conspiracy theories are a helluva drug

Every time I hear about some crazy big money, decade + long battle for a military contract, I think of that HBO movie that they made about the M2 Bradley.

As someone who will be directly affected by this contract....though I will prob retire by the time the AF has these in operation I can honestly say I hope they produce something that's worth while. I'm hoping they take the design issues from the KC10 and know what not to do for the next refueler. I've been a KC10 crew chief for the passed 13 1/2 yrs and they aren't aging very well. Especially problematic in cold climates.

Cold Climates? Isnt it pretty cold up in the air?

I dont see the major problems of making a tanker?

Seeing the design proposals from both Northrop and Boeing, I think you'll be getting an awesome product. Both airframes are more than capable. My issue is the funding. Being a leas program, the USAF will never own the 767s, and after ten year for each plane, they'll have to lease a new one from Boeing, it thus becoming a revolving door.

How is it a conspiracy theory?

Cold temps at 37,000 feet for 5-14 hrs are different then the prolonged exposure to subfreezing temps in the winter. Any time the temps drop below 10 degrees or so the jet starts leaking hyd fluid from all the landing gear struts, hyd fluid will start leaking from all hyd actuators, eng starter valves start freezing closed(making it unable to start the engines without the manual starter valve operation), and fuel starts leaking from over half the fuel tank drains due the the seals shrinking. This is all from a 1 day stay in alaska at -25 degrees. We had 4 heaters brought out and ran the ducts into the engine intakes, and blowing on the struts to stop them from leaking long enough for us to take off. Trying to get the jet ready was a pain in the you know what.
It's not the building of the jets that's the problem it's the design flaws that come later. Like with the KC-10 we used to use the lower center fuel tank for special fuel to refuel the SR-71. Now that tank goes unused and for whatever reason they tell us not to put any fuel in the lower tank. Now any time a flight crew member puts fuel in the tank it leaks and the jet goes straight into fuel cell maintenance for days fixing the leak. For some reason there's nothing telling them they can't, but we in maintenance know not to.
Not to mention the delpleted uranium counterwieghts we used to use in the wings and the cockpit emergency sign that is radioactive if broken open(always glows). :shock:

He doesn't wanna believe the govt. actually does stuff like this. :rofl:

Sounds like a mess rob. I wonder if any of this was taken into consideration when they were planning the development of this aircraft. If its anything the Corp world they do it without any insight. On what is really needed.