Classic British Flight Sim

XR219 wrote:Hi Chris,

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but from the synopsys I have read in the press, the decision was originally made by the airforce, and has now been over ruled by the politicians, and its a defence committee that will now make the decision. While this might sound like getting good value for tax payers, should the airforce not be the ones to make the decision (as they probably know a whole lot more about AAR than a committee or the average taxpayer?)

Just curious.

It was overturned by the GAO, not the politicians. The GAO is the government's version of a police agency's Internal Affairs department or a corporation's Auditing department. Their job is to review complaints against government agencies, primarily dealing with acquisitions and finances, by anyone from outside or within the agency. That means that if I (Joe Citizen) think that something is fishy about some government program that I have an interest in (so anything using taxpayer money) I can file a complaint with the GAO. If they feel there's merit to my complaint, they will investigate. The GAO found that the USAF acted inappropriately in their awarding of the contract. The Secretary of Defense then determined that the USAF's acquisition department is incapable of doing its job correctly (reference my previous posts) and has said that now the Deputy Secretary for Acquisitions and his staff (who, while civilians, are in a civil servant position, not elected or appointed ones) will make the final determination on this bid since the USAF's twice screwed this contract up and screwed up the last 3 programs as well.

Tonks, the problem that Boeing had was that the USAF penalized them arbitrarily (and the GAO agreed) and basically stacked the deck against them. They're a global company just as much as EADS is. BTW, the A330s used for the KC-45 wouldn't be built in the US. They'd only receive final assembly here and have the military systems installed. Even at that, EADS only did that after they found out that the US acquisition rules state that 51% of the work has to occur within the US. Originally EADS was going to build and assemble the aircraft in France and then fly them "Green" to the US for fitting of the tanker systems.

Point is - no party is 100% innocent, but the last thing the USAF needed was another KC-10 (too few planes to do too many jobs). By going for the A330 they were going to get exactly that. If NG/EADS wants to offer the A300MRTT and it can do better than the KC-767, then NG/EADS should win. But they shouldn't win by offering an aircraft that doesn't do the job of the plane it's supposed to replace.

On the surface (and at a distance ) it seems like the USA has (in common with many western governments) installed a whole new level of civil servants, to police the other civil servants, military and polititions if they make a screw up...which between them is almost certain.

Their powers seem to be able to take the ball away and start the whole game from scratch. Whilst I am sure this may be 'fair', the cost of running this department and starting the whole procurement process(and I guess this would be the case over catering supply 'pepper grinders', uniform underpants and new tankers) would probably enable the USAF to have both typesin service in 18 months, let alone get the JSF into service before the current Air Force Academy freshers ritire from the service!

The whole thing is beginning to look like a script from a US version of 'Yes Minister' At least Chris would make a great 'Sir Humphrey' with those explanations of his. Sorry if this means nothing to you folks, it's another 'Brit thing'!

Chris makes an interesting point about the US taxpayer getting what it wants and the UK accepting what it gets.
Maybe thats the difference in our outlook.
We are realists

Steve

Maybe I'm missing the point, but the taxpayer should not be defining what aircraft an airforce gets to fly. They simply hand over the budget and say "here guys, go get what you need with that."

In defence of the USA, Any country that protects the jobs of its own workforce is to be commended. We are now f**ked as we are not allowed to offer many contracts to our own companies as we have to "free trade" with Europe. The French on the other hand (again to be commended) see fit to be very protective of their industries.

As someone once said about the French, they take very pro europe, yet don't actually do what they ask of everyone else, whereas Britain doesn't really like all of the "european legislation" but plays by the rules, making us a laughing stock. :-(

calypsos wrote: I guess we Brits are alone in being able to laugh at ourselves (and our mutually stupid governments and civil service) as a nation and any attempt to export this this ends up in miles of red tape and words.....rather like this bid! Still I am glad that the RAF tanker replacement is well on track
[/b]OK, I am bracing myself hard for the response :fart:

Oh, I think the Americans can sometimes laugh at themselves too (except perhaps Texans.) ;-) Go Redskins!

That said, no nation on Earth does it as well as the Brits!

PS Trev, several years ago our Public Broadcasting station ran"Yes Minister" so I know what your talking about. Most of our best shows come from the UK, sometimes the originals and sometimes American versions which can be good or very, very bad copies.

Chris Trott wrote: But they shouldn't win by offering an aircraft that doesn't do the job of the plane it's supposed to replace.

So what you are saying is that they should be penalised for offering a more capable platform - surely part of the reason for replacement. Also, and anyone feel free to correct me, but if they didn't offer the A330MRTT what would they offer, seeing as the A300 production line was drawn down and closed by last year. Certainly not an A318/9/20/21 based solution!

Hey All,
I rarely join in on the topics here, prefering to lurk, but this time, To use Chris' term, I have to disagree....
As an American taxpayer, I find it unbelievable that we are going to spend MORE money on a decision that should stand...if it's the better plane, than so be it..even if it is..God forbid..."foriegn"...we did'nt gripe too much when the Merlin engine turned the Mustang into a premier fighter plane, why do it now..when the stakes are somewhat lower...and we certainly don't gripe about it when UK airlines buy Boeings...speaking as a taxpayer,if it's best for the guys that are putting thier asses on the line on a daily basis, then fine...screw the cost ...and screw who made it..as long as it gets them home ,or wherever, safest. the decision to reconsider is pure election year politics. You want cynical Chris...We don't vote out the tax and spenders...we recycle them...same as the UK does, I am sure...There is no Mr.Smith heading to Washington...the only difference between Englands distrust of Government and ours is...they handle it with Sarcasm and Irony..whereas we use name calling and jingoistic rhetoric to hide our impotency...oh..and AM radio.

n the UK you guys may resign yourselves to getting what you get, but in the US we (the Taxpayer) tend to exercise our right as the bosses of those spending our money to make sure that it's being spent right.

Can you seriously post this to a nation that had the balls to vote out the man who led them through World War two...barely two months after defeating Hitler?!? :roll:

Probably should have kept my mouth shut.....

Jason, just because it can carry more further doesn't mean it's better for the job. That's the issue.

Ben - I think it's a matter of nuance. Yes, we (the taxpayer) give the military money to go get what they need, but we also expect them to get what they need in a responsible manner. When you are on one hand issuing a lease deal that is garnered under less-than-honest conditions, you should not reward them. However, when the military goes out and says "I need this" and then buys something that isn't that, then it's also the right of the taxpayer to not reward the military for wasting its money.

In the JSF competition - the X-35 was the better airplane of the two by several margins and does all the jobs they wanted without compromising the weight and size issues that were very important to all the services involved. So it won.

In the VH-X competition - the US-101 barely met the "domestic production" requirement, but fit all the other requirements much better than the S-92. As much as people complained and moaned that the US-101 "isn't really American" (just as much as the KC-30A would be), it was selected as the winner and there was no protest.

In the CSAR-X competition - the HH-47 was the most capable, but was on the order of twice the maximum size of the requirement in both weight and physical dimensions. The GAO chided the USAF for that decision and the USAF went back, looked at the requirements with the end user (US Air Force Special Operations) and decided that the size was not as important as the total capability. The GAO and the citizens of the US accepted that.

In the KC-X competition - First the USAF signed a lease with Boeing for the KC-767. This was then canceled because one Senator who has no grip on how leases work decided it was "inappropriate" for Boeing to make anything on the deal. The USAF then rebid the contract and Boeing won it again only to have it stripped again because of issues surrounding how a DoD staffer was offered a job at Boeing while presiding over the bid process. The the USAF bid it a third time and the USAF specified that a size similar to the KC-135 and a fuel capacity of 65 tons was the most important items. The KC-30A is almost twice the size of the KC-135 and carries 80 tons of fuel. Now, while that might be nice to have the extra fuel, the USAF specifically said that no extra consideration would be given to exceeding any of the requirements. As the KC-767 exceeded both of the primary requirements less than the KC-30A, then KC-767 should have won as it fits the job of the KC-135 better than the KC-30A.

More is not always better. The biggest problem that the USAF has with the KC-10 is that there aren't enough and they're too big for many forward bases. Because of this, it limits how useful they are and often the KC-10s have to fly nearly twice the distance as the KC-135s as they can't base as close to the action. In addition, there aren't enough KC-10s to fill the refueling requirements of the modern battlefield plus carry the cargo they need to carry to supplement the airlifters (as we don't have enough C-5s and C-17s for our needs). The USAF asked for a plane that was primarily a compact tanker with cargo and passenger haulage second. They awarded the contract to the plane that was exactly the opposite.

But if that was really, truly the goal, wouldn't they have wanted something more along the lines of a KC-737? Remember, a 737-900 is the approximate fuselage dimensions of a KC-135 (this is the part, kids, where he points out that the 737 is nowhere near the approximate dimensions, having an upper lobe and differing in length by what most of us would consider an insignificant margin, but I digress for the sake of not wanting to ring too close to home. The lower lobe is also shallower as well, but we'll ignore that part for the sake of ignoring it).

At any rate, I don't think we'll have a new tanker for a good 30 years yet. Just enough time to make the competing aircraft as obsolete as the KC-135 is now.

..........
The Trott Posted:

GAO Releases Details Of Boeing Tanker Ruling
The Wall Street Journal 06/26/2008
Author: August Cole
(Copyright (c) 2008, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

your posting copy protected matrial
..... you know it's almost like you google the topics and then kinda reword things a little
then post the copy protected matrial to .. back yersef up....

As for whats best for the country, you'll never speak for me so watch how you use "US"


Shirley.your under some kinda delusion if you think otherwise.




























...........