The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the DoD has hit the stop button on the tanker contract:
The Department of Defense is calling off a hotly disputed $40 billion competition to replace its aging fleet of aerial-refueling tankers because officials don't think they can pick a winner before the next presidential administration as planned.
The decision is a major victory for Boeing Co., which had lost the initial competition in February to a team comprised of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent company of Europe's Airbus. Boeing's protest of that decision was upheld by the Government Accountability Office, leading to a new round of bidding.
President McCain or President Obama will be inheriting this mess. Any odds on bets that this becomes an issue in the Presidential campaign?
on September 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply
hmmmm maybe skip KC-X and go direct for the KC-Y ??
advantage Boeing.
Just a thought.
on September 10, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply
Fred,
They did that to begin with when they selected the KC-30...
This was no KC-X, or the KC-767 would have won hands down.
on September 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply
1 to 2 year delay ought to give the Boeing folks enough time to revise their tanker strategy around the 787 airframe. Boeing is going to need to open a second 787 line anyway. They ought to take the 767 line and convert it to a second line for the 787. This ought to help with the slipping delivery schedule and put a tanker out there which won't have any competition from the likes of Airbus
on September 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply
Let's face it, whatever happens, if there is to be a future tanker, politics will be blamed for the selection. Should Boeing have thrown the rest of its toys out of the pram by refusing to re-bid, absent any other entrant against Northrop, a 'no contest' selection of the NG KC-45 surely would have been ruled oit of order - a pretty transparent but very successful spoiler by BA.
If the now-defunct 'competition' had continued the 'loser' would have cried "Foul" and if the Air Force now takes the opportunity to re-write the spec according to today's wisdom and Government-directed strategy, again the loser will cry "Foul" and likely argue that the goalposts have been moved. Let's hope that - whoever holds the rubber stamp - the Air Force will again have the courage of its convictions and say which airplane it believes will do the job best. Then if higher military or government parties change things we'll all know who to blame - won't we?
on September 11, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply
Something that bugs me is that this tanker deal may be a swaying factor for the elections in November. Many claim McCain dislikes Boeing. And? He doesn't get the final say, the Defense Dept's do (Pentagon and Air Force, etc.). Besides, I think our gov't, in all their "infinite wisdom" should go with an American made product (or at least assembled here) and just give Boeing every detailed spec they want. Walk them through the design process start to finish and when Boeing comes up with the final drawing then build the thing. This competition has dragged on way too long.
on September 11, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply
OH?!
This seems to be quite historical. And gives argument in front of people still complaining about an (still not verified) subvention of 3€ for Airbus in 1756...
Finaly a good thing.
on September 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply
It would seem that the forces at work within the US Military Industrial complex; particulary the lobbyists, means that it is nigh on impossible to get a contract from award through development, production and into service.
The loser in all this is the US Military; too many vested interests, too much money at stake.
When will they be able to declare IOC on the new 777 tanker - 2020 ?
on September 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply
Open market? Open competition? I was thinking that was the basis of the US system. Let the best win!
"Do as I say not as I do" seems to be more effective than the idea above.
To the one dreaming of a 787-based taner. Really stop dreaming! the aicraft is not flying, nobody knows if he will meet its operationnal targets, it can not be a good argument for the competition. Remmeber that Boeing was claiming that their refueling technology was more mature than the Airbus one and therefore that USAF will take risks if choosing Airbus. What if 787?
Besides, Boeing as a lot of work for the 787s it is committed for.