A Slobbering Love Affair with the C-17

[Navy1960]

Senators sparred during floor debate on the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill Tuesday over whether to scrap $2.5 billion added by appropriators to the measure to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes the Obama administration says it doesn't want.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced an amendment to the $636.3 billion bill that would eliminate the add-on for the Boeing Co.-produced plane and redirect the money to the military's operations and maintenance accounts, from which appropriators trimmed $3 billion to pay for other priorities.

The relentless opponent of pork-barrel spending argued the funding cut from O&M accounts represents "critical sustainment money" for a military whose readiness rates have fallen to "truly worrisome levels."
Senators clash over C-17 funding (9/30/09) -- GovExec.com

Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008.

The move - part of the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the latest Bush administration request for supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and several other efforts such as Gulf Coast hurricane recovery - follows the full House's move last month to appropriate just $100 million for the C-17 (DAILY, March 22).
Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey On GlobalSpec

Sep. 27--Congress appears headed for a showdown with the White House over Boeing's C-17 program, with the Senate set to approve funding Tuesday for 10 more planes despite objections from top administration officials.

The vote to include $2.5 billion to keep the Long Beach plant open through

Boeing C-17 jobs in balance as Congress considers funding: Senate is poised to OK funds for more 10 more C-17 planes, but veto threat looms | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense put the money in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget to buy 10 more Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs.

While the White House clearly said it didn’t want any more of the big transport jets, it’s not one of the issues that President Barack Obama has threatened a veto over.

The panel largely went along with the White House’s recommendations on other hot-button weapons programs, ending both a Lockheed Martin Corp.-led effort to replace the White House’s own fleet of helicopters and production of the F-22 Raptor fighter, and it didn’t provide any money for an alternate engine design for the Pentagon’s newest fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said
Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them - Washington Wire - WSJ

The Pentagon not only left new C-17 transport planes out of its budget request this year, it set aside half a billion dollars to halt the planes' production. Officially, the Air Force took the same view, swearing off any more C-17s, which cost $250 million apiece.
Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More - washingtonpost.com



The C-17 for any of you who do not know what it is, is a Military airlifter with multi-mission capability. However, all these articles point to a problem that has not only been going on with DoD for years but also with the Govt. in General. Here you have the US Air Force officially saying they need no more C-17's and the President as well, then behind the scenes you have the Air Force and congress approving additional millions for aircraft that will keep people employed. Then you have the President telling the American people that the F-22 needs to be cancelled to save money even though the 50 plus thousand people employed in it's production seemed not to be an issue to the same people it's an issue with on the C-17. So you actually trust this Govt. to reform healthcare when then cannot even manage a defense program or get the Air Force a Tanker in the last 20 years?

 

[MaggieMae]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

 

[Polk]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

The waste will never be addressed, because you go after it and you'll get howls of being "anti-military".

 

[Navy1960]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

No Maggie, I am in favor of DoD operating as it should in a professional manner that responds to the "REQUESTED NEEDS" of the Military. I have been aware since 2005 that the Air Force has said many times, present 2009 statements excluded that they have an over capacity in airlift capabilities. If you take into conjunction C130's, the additional 100's of millions on the C-5 upgrade program and the 200 some odd C-17's that are already in the inventory , if the Air Force say's it needs Tankers then that is where the focus of that money should be and not with the C-17. The employee's that work on the line can stay employed with export versions of the C-17 and if DoD had their respective house in order then those employee's could be transitioned to the Tanker Program. I was a supporter and still am if the F-22 because it represents a need that the Air Force has clearlt stated it has for years.

The problem with DoD which has been for years in purchasing, is a "good old boy" network and a bloated system that favors suppliers and keeps programs running and spends money on development costs for weapons systems that never are fielded. What needs to happen with DoD is competitive OPEN bidding on programs and fixed costs bids with deadlines associated with penalties for non-performance. In a atmosphere that places the needs of the warfighter first and not the needs of the contractor first then you will see the taxpayers money better spent and defense workers employed for longger periods of times.

 

[Xenophon]

The real problem is the only thing the USA still manufactures is weapons.

When these aern't needed a lot of people go out of work, which is why when people like Barry talk about saving money by cutting defense they actually increase unemployment and make the economy worse.

Those defense contractors can't produce anything else, they either get gov money or lay off workers.

 

[Si modo]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

The waste will never be addressed, because you go after it and you'll get howls of being "anti-military".

It has more to do with Congress not willing to defund projects that will help their states.

The military tells the DoD what they need and don't need. Now, the DoD is wising up and agreeing with them, but Congress appropriates the money. If the contracter for an aircraft is in a state where votes are needed, Congress will earmark funds in that appropriation for something that is not needed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Senators sparred during floor debate on the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill Tuesday over whether to scrap $2.5 billion added by appropriators to the measure to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes the Obama administration says it doesn't want.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced an amendment to the $636.3 billion bill that would eliminate the add-on for the Boeing Co.-produced plane and redirect the money to the military's operations and maintenance accounts, from which appropriators trimmed $3 billion to pay for other priorities.

The relentless opponent of pork-barrel spending argued the funding cut from O&M accounts represents "critical sustainment money" for a military whose readiness rates have fallen to "truly worrisome levels."
Senators clash over C-17 funding (9/30/09) -- GovExec.com

Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008.

The move - part of the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the latest Bush administration request for supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and several other efforts such as Gulf Coast hurricane recovery - follows the full House's move last month to appropriate just $100 million for the C-17 (DAILY, March 22).
Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey On GlobalSpec

Sep. 27--Congress appears headed for a showdown with the White House over Boeing's C-17 program, with the Senate set to approve funding Tuesday for 10 more planes despite objections from top administration officials.

The vote to include $2.5 billion to keep the Long Beach plant open through

Boeing C-17 jobs in balance as Congress considers funding: Senate is poised to OK funds for more 10 more C-17 planes, but veto threat looms | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense put the money in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget to buy 10 more Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs.

While the White House clearly said it didn’t want any more of the big transport jets, it’s not one of the issues that President Barack Obama has threatened a veto over.

The panel largely went along with the White House’s recommendations on other hot-button weapons programs, ending both a Lockheed Martin Corp.-led effort to replace the White House’s own fleet of helicopters and production of the F-22 Raptor fighter, and it didn’t provide any money for an alternate engine design for the Pentagon’s newest fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said
Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them - Washington Wire - WSJ

The Pentagon not only left new C-17 transport planes out of its budget request this year, it set aside half a billion dollars to halt the planes' production. Officially, the Air Force took the same view, swearing off any more C-17s, which cost $250 million apiece.
Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More - washingtonpost.com



The C-17 for any of you who do not know what it is, is a Military airlifter with multi-mission capability. However, all these articles point to a problem that has not only been going on with DoD for years but also with the Govt. in General. Here you have the US Air Force officially saying they need no more C-17's and the President as well, then behind the scenes you have the Air Force and congress approving additional millions for aircraft that will keep people employed. Then you have the President telling the American people that the F-22 needs to be cancelled to save money even though the 50 plus thousand people employed in it's production seemed not to be an issue to the same people it's an issue with on the C-17. So you actually trust this Govt. to reform healthcare when then cannot even manage a defense program or get the Air Force a Tanker in the last 20 years?

Seems like McCain has the only voice of reason here.

 

[Navy1960]

One has to wonder how long Boeing would survive if they only had to exist on commercial aircraft sales. Which up until the recent downturn in the economy was doing quite well with the advent of the 787. In some cases the Military purchasing actually keeps the commercial workers employed, thus one the reasons why Boeing has offered the KC-767 as Tanker for the Air Force Tanker Program.

 

[The T]

Senators sparred during floor debate on the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill Tuesday over whether to scrap $2.5 billion added by appropriators to the measure to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes the Obama administration says it doesn't want.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced an amendment to the $636.3 billion bill that would eliminate the add-on for the Boeing Co.-produced plane and redirect the money to the military's operations and maintenance accounts, from which appropriators trimmed $3 billion to pay for other priorities.

The relentless opponent of pork-barrel spending argued the funding cut from O&M accounts represents "critical sustainment money" for a military whose readiness rates have fallen to "truly worrisome levels."
Senators clash over C-17 funding (9/30/09) -- GovExec.com

Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008.

The move - part of the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the latest Bush administration request for supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and several other efforts such as Gulf Coast hurricane recovery - follows the full House's move last month to appropriate just $100 million for the C-17 (DAILY, March 22).
Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey On GlobalSpec

Sep. 27--Congress appears headed for a showdown with the White House over Boeing's C-17 program, with the Senate set to approve funding Tuesday for 10 more planes despite objections from top administration officials.

The vote to include $2.5 billion to keep the Long Beach plant open through

Boeing C-17 jobs in balance as Congress considers funding: Senate is poised to OK funds for more 10 more C-17 planes, but veto threat looms | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense put the money in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget to buy 10 more Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs.

While the White House clearly said it didn’t want any more of the big transport jets, it’s not one of the issues that President Barack Obama has threatened a veto over.

The panel largely went along with the White House’s recommendations on other hot-button weapons programs, ending both a Lockheed Martin Corp.-led effort to replace the White House’s own fleet of helicopters and production of the F-22 Raptor fighter, and it didn’t provide any money for an alternate engine design for the Pentagon’s newest fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said
Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them - Washington Wire - WSJ

The Pentagon not only left new C-17 transport planes out of its budget request this year, it set aside half a billion dollars to halt the planes' production. Officially, the Air Force took the same view, swearing off any more C-17s, which cost $250 million apiece.
Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More - washingtonpost.com



The C-17 for any of you who do not know what it is, is a Military airlifter with multi-mission capability. However, all these articles point to a problem that has not only been going on with DoD for years but also with the Govt. in General. Here you have the US Air Force officially saying they need no more C-17's and the President as well, then behind the scenes you have the Air Force and congress approving additional millions for aircraft that will keep people employed. Then you have the President telling the American people that the F-22 needs to be cancelled to save money even though the 50 plus thousand people employed in it's production seemed not to be an issue to the same people it's an issue with on the C-17. So you actually trust this Govt. to reform healthcare when then cannot even manage a defense program or get the Air Force a Tanker in the last 20 years?

What I see is an apparent front to keep some Senator's District Jobs alive and solely for that purpose, while other more critical Military budget items are sacrificed. And all for the sake of politics?

Sickening indeed.

 

[Xenophon]

One has to wonder how long Boeing would survive if they only had to exist on commercial aircraft sales. Which up until the recent downturn in the economy was doing quite well with the advent of the 787. In some cases the Military purchasing actually keeps the commercial workers employed, thus one the reasons why Boeing has offered the KC-767 as Tanker for the Air Force Tanker Program.

They would not survive.

Airbus has been beating them on commercial aircraft for years, the US has often bribed countries into buying boeing planes to keep them above water.

 

[Navy1960]

One has to wonder how long Boeing would survive if they only had to exist on commercial aircraft sales. Which up until the recent downturn in the economy was doing quite well with the advent of the 787. In some cases the Military purchasing actually keeps the commercial workers employed, thus one the reasons why Boeing has offered the KC-767 as Tanker for the Air Force Tanker Program.

They would not survive.

Airbus has been beating them on commercial aircraft for years, the US has often bribed countries into buying boeing planes to keep them above water.

Would be an interesting debate, I think Airbus stepped in it with the A380 though and prior to this recent economic downturn were basically getting it handed to them buy the 787. However , the one issue Boeing has had with that aircraft is they keep stretching the delivery of it out because of delays , they might soon find themselves in a bad position with the A-350. One driving force with Boeing as well is Southwest especially with the 737. Southwest has asked Boeing many times in the last several years to design a follow-on to the 737 which Boeing recently shelved. If Southwest chooses an Airbus product it would be a devestating blow to Boeing.

 

[Navy1960]

Senators sparred during floor debate on the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill Tuesday over whether to scrap $2.5 billion added by appropriators to the measure to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes the Obama administration says it doesn't want.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced an amendment to the $636.3 billion bill that would eliminate the add-on for the Boeing Co.-produced plane and redirect the money to the military's operations and maintenance accounts, from which appropriators trimmed $3 billion to pay for other priorities.

The relentless opponent of pork-barrel spending argued the funding cut from O&M accounts represents "critical sustainment money" for a military whose readiness rates have fallen to "truly worrisome levels."
Senators clash over C-17 funding (9/30/09) -- GovExec.com

Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008.

The move - part of the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the latest Bush administration request for supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and several other efforts such as Gulf Coast hurricane recovery - follows the full House's move last month to appropriate just $100 million for the C-17 (DAILY, March 22).
Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey On GlobalSpec

Sep. 27--Congress appears headed for a showdown with the White House over Boeing's C-17 program, with the Senate set to approve funding Tuesday for 10 more planes despite objections from top administration officials.

The vote to include $2.5 billion to keep the Long Beach plant open through

Boeing C-17 jobs in balance as Congress considers funding: Senate is poised to OK funds for more 10 more C-17 planes, but veto threat looms | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense put the money in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget to buy 10 more Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs.

While the White House clearly said it didn’t want any more of the big transport jets, it’s not one of the issues that President Barack Obama has threatened a veto over.

The panel largely went along with the White House’s recommendations on other hot-button weapons programs, ending both a Lockheed Martin Corp.-led effort to replace the White House’s own fleet of helicopters and production of the F-22 Raptor fighter, and it didn’t provide any money for an alternate engine design for the Pentagon’s newest fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said
Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them - Washington Wire - WSJ

The Pentagon not only left new C-17 transport planes out of its budget request this year, it set aside half a billion dollars to halt the planes' production. Officially, the Air Force took the same view, swearing off any more C-17s, which cost $250 million apiece.
Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More - washingtonpost.com



The C-17 for any of you who do not know what it is, is a Military airlifter with multi-mission capability. However, all these articles point to a problem that has not only been going on with DoD for years but also with the Govt. in General. Here you have the US Air Force officially saying they need no more C-17's and the President as well, then behind the scenes you have the Air Force and congress approving additional millions for aircraft that will keep people employed. Then you have the President telling the American people that the F-22 needs to be cancelled to save money even though the 50 plus thousand people employed in it's production seemed not to be an issue to the same people it's an issue with on the C-17. So you actually trust this Govt. to reform healthcare when then cannot even manage a defense program or get the Air Force a Tanker in the last 20 years?

What I see is an apparent front to keep some Senator's District Jobs alive and solely for that purpose, while other more critical Military budget items are sacrificed. And all for the sake of politics?

Sickening indeed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Army has decided to pull the plug on the development of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter and instead use the money to upgrade its current fleet and replace aging National Guard and Army Reserve helicopters, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The military has already spent $6.9 billion over the last two decades to develop the Comanche, conceived as a surveillance and attack aircraft with "stealth" capability to make it difficult for an enemy to detect. But only two prototypes have ever been built, and the high-tech chopper was still at least two years away from regular production
CNN.com - Army cancels Comanche helicopter - Feb. 23, 2004

Your correct, and after spending 6 Billion dollars, would you like to know how many helicopters the Army has? "ZERO". See what I mean by poor management and not listening to the warfighter.

 

[MaggieMae]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

No Maggie, I am in favor of DoD operating as it should in a professional manner that responds to the "REQUESTED NEEDS" of the Military. I have been aware since 2005 that the Air Force has said many times, present 2009 statements excluded that they have an over capacity in airlift capabilities. If you take into conjunction C130's, the additional 100's of millions on the C-5 upgrade program and the 200 some odd C-17's that are already in the inventory , if the Air Force say's it needs Tankers then that is where the focus of that money should be and not with the C-17. The employee's that work on the line can stay employed with export versions of the C-17 and if DoD had their respective house in order then those employee's could be transitioned to the Tanker Program. I was a supporter and still am if the F-22 because it represents a need that the Air Force has clearlt stated it has for years.

The problem with DoD which has been for years in purchasing, is a "good old boy" network and a bloated system that favors suppliers and keeps programs running and spends money on development costs for weapons systems that never are fielded. What needs to happen with DoD is competitive OPEN bidding on programs and fixed costs bids with deadlines associated with penalties for non-performance. In a atmosphere that places the needs of the warfighter first and not the needs of the contractor first then you will see the taxpayers money better spent and defense workers employed for longger periods of times.

Absolutely. What do you think it will take? Does Gates have a better handle on performance and cost? At least he doesn't seem to be afraid to butt heads.

 

[MaggieMae]

The real problem is the only thing the USA still manufactures is weapons.

When these aern't needed a lot of people go out of work, which is why when people like Barry talk about saving money by cutting defense they actually increase unemployment and make the economy worse.

Those defense contractors can't produce anything else, they either get gov money or lay off workers.

And yet when it comes to government contracts (via the stimulus bill, for example) for roads and bridges, the right will exclaim that it's still spending taxpayer money and that's a no-no. But it's okay as long as government contracts are for weapons?

 

[MaggieMae]

Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.

The waste will never be addressed, because you go after it and you'll get howls of being "anti-military".

It has more to do with Congress not willing to defund projects that will help their states.

The military tells the DoD what they need and don't need. Now, the DoD is wising up and agreeing with them, but Congress appropriates the money. If the contracter for an aircraft is in a state where votes are needed, Congress will earmark funds in that appropriation for something that is not needed.

Unfortunately, that's the way it's done and it's technically correct since House members in particular are constitutionally bound to represent their districts' interests.

 

[Navy1960]

Maggie, I have little confidence that Gates will do anything other than what his current boss tells him to do. Gates is a go along to get along type and that is not what the DoD needs in there. All you need to do is take a look at Gates positions on missile defense under Bush and his recent back and ping-pong on the VH-71.

What needs to happen is and this is my opinion only is DoD must have a an open bidding process that is subject to congressional oversight and these bids must begin at the Service level. By that I mean , the Navy must request in it's budget process x amount of dollars for a project, have that money approved by congress, then call out for bid on a fixed cost basis and set a time table for that bidding. Once that has been complete the company that has been given the award witll be subject to time tables and and penalties for not meeting those time tables. The status of these contracts should be posted i.e. monies spent should be posted for the average person to review as well as oversight before congress on a timed basis. If a contractor fails to meet the requirements of these time tables after a period of time then they will be subject to being cancelled as well as contract costs refunded to the taxpayer which includes R&D and development costs. Likewise, when congress approves a weapons system to purchase at a fixed cost and agree's to purchase that system over a period of time, that system should not be subject to the political whims of whomever happens to want to cut it. The American taxpayer has paid billions and billions for R&D , projects on countless weapons that were cut, and never fielded because of congressional whims both republican and democrat. If you really want to see what a debacle it has become Maggie just look online at the history of the US Air Force Tanker project. The point here is this can be fixed with the application of a little common sense and actually listening to the warfighters and not subjecting these projects to political whims and holding these contractors feet to the fire. If Boeing under performs I can assure you that there is a while line of aerospace compaines willing to do the job, see what I mean?

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, I have little confidence that Gates will do anything other than what his current boss tells him to do. Gates is a go along to get along type and that is not what the DoD needs in there. All you need to do is take a look at Gates positions on missile defense under Bush and his recent back and ping-pong on the VH-71.

What needs to happen is and this is my opinion only is DoD must have a an open bidding process that is subject to congressional oversight and these bids must begin at the Service level. By that I mean , the Navy must request in it's budget process x amount of dollars for a project, have that money approved by congress, then call out for bid on a fixed cost basis and set a time table for that bidding. Once that has been complete the company that has been given the award witll be subject to time tables and and penalties for not meeting those time tables. The status of these contracts should be posted i.e. monies spent should be posted for the average person to review as well as oversight before congress on a timed basis. If a contractor fails to meet the requirements of these time tables after a period of time then they will be subject to being cancelled as well as contract costs refunded to the taxpayer which includes R&D and development costs. Likewise, when congress approves a weapons system to purchase at a fixed cost and agree's to purchase that system over a period of time, that system should not be subject to the political whims of whomever happens to want to cut it. The American taxpayer has paid billions and billions for R&D , projects on countless weapons that were cut, and never fielded because of congressional whims both republican and democrat. If you really want to see what a debacle it has become Maggie just look online at the history of the US Air Force Tanker project. The point here is this can be fixed with the application of a little common sense and actually listening to the warfighters and not subjecting these projects to political whims and holding these contractors feet to the fire. If Boeing under performs I can assure you that there is a while line of aerospace compaines willing to do the job, see what I mean?

Why can't the Pentagon just outlaw cost-plus contracts completely? Seems like that would eliminate over-budget and under-performance problems which inevitably plague cost-plus deals, whether intentionally or not.

One of my first jobs was a clerk position with NASA at the Mississippi Test Facility in 1967 where the Saturn V rocket launcher was tested (the other facility was in Huntsville, AL). I remember the guys who worked for North American Rockwell joking as we watched the first test after the Saturn V booster had been shipped from Boeing and finally in place on the testing pad that we'd all better do some serious praying since the whole thing, including the booster itself, was constructed by the lowest bidder.

But it tested out several times and of course the Saturn V was ultimately used in several space missions, and I don't recall North American Rockwell lost any money on the project. But they could have been low bidder on a cost-plus contract, too. I don't remember. I do recall the contract was amended many times because NASA kept revising the specs.

That was probably totally irrelevant. Just thought I'd throw it out there. It just doesn't seem any kind of government business with private industry is conducted the way it used to be.

 

[Navy1960]

Maggie, I have little confidence that Gates will do anything other than what his current boss tells him to do. Gates is a go along to get along type and that is not what the DoD needs in there. All you need to do is take a look at Gates positions on missile defense under Bush and his recent back and ping-pong on the VH-71.

What needs to happen is and this is my opinion only is DoD must have a an open bidding process that is subject to congressional oversight and these bids must begin at the Service level. By that I mean , the Navy must request in it's budget process x amount of dollars for a project, have that money approved by congress, then call out for bid on a fixed cost basis and set a time table for that bidding. Once that has been complete the company that has been given the award witll be subject to time tables and and penalties for not meeting those time tables. The status of these contracts should be posted i.e. monies spent should be posted for the average person to review as well as oversight before congress on a timed basis. If a contractor fails to meet the requirements of these time tables after a period of time then they will be subject to being cancelled as well as contract costs refunded to the taxpayer which includes R&D and development costs. Likewise, when congress approves a weapons system to purchase at a fixed cost and agree's to purchase that system over a period of time, that system should not be subject to the political whims of whomever happens to want to cut it. The American taxpayer has paid billions and billions for R&D , projects on countless weapons that were cut, and never fielded because of congressional whims both republican and democrat. If you really want to see what a debacle it has become Maggie just look online at the history of the US Air Force Tanker project. The point here is this can be fixed with the application of a little common sense and actually listening to the warfighters and not subjecting these projects to political whims and holding these contractors feet to the fire. If Boeing under performs I can assure you that there is a while line of aerospace compaines willing to do the job, see what I mean?

Why can't the Pentagon just outlaw cost-plus contracts completely? Seems like that would eliminate over-budget and under-performance problems which inevitably plague cost-plus deals, whether intentionally or not.

One of my first jobs was a clerk position with NASA at the Mississippi Test Facility in 1967 where the Saturn V rocket launcher was tested (the other facility was in Huntsville, AL). I remember the guys who worked for North American Rockwell joking as we watched the first test after the Saturn V booster had been shipped from Boeing and finally in place on the testing pad that we'd all better do some serious praying since the whole thing, including the booster itself, was constructed by the lowest bidder.

But it tested out several times and of course the Saturn V was ultimately used in several space missions, and I don't recall North American Rockwell lost any money on the project. But they could have been low bidder on a cost-plus contract, too. I don't remember. I do recall the contract was amended many times because NASA kept revising the specs.

That was probably totally irrelevant. Just thought I'd throw it out there. It just doesn't seem any kind of government business with private industry is conducted the way it used to be.

It's not Maggie, the bidding process in a lot of cases has little or anything to do with what you would call bidding at all. In fact in some cases the actual RFP's are being written but the contractors themselves.