So You Think you know about Govt. Spending.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Navy1960, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    The Air Force will soon release its final request for proposed bids in the long saga of replacing it's mid-air refueling tankers. Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS are facing off again for a massive deal that will start at $35 billion, but could end up over $100 billion.

    Nothing about this deal has gone smoothly, and it looks like that's not going to change.
    Boeing and Northrop Face-Off in Unfair Battle Over Tanker - General * US * News * Story - CNBC.com


    The initial plan was to lease Boeing KC-767 tankers on a sole-source basis; Boeing is the only American company with the requisite industrial capability to manufacture large-body aircraft. As such, the KC-767 was initially selected in 2002[1] and in 2003 was awarded a US$20 billion contract to lease KC-767 tankers to replace the KC-135.

    Led by Senator John McCain, several US government leaders protested the lease contract as wasteful and problematic. In response to the protests, the Air Force struck a compromise in November 2003, whereby it would purchase 80 KC-767 aircraft and lease 20 more.[2]

    Yet in December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January 2003) was begun. Druyun pled guilty of criminal wrongdoing and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[3] Additional fallout included the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears (who was later sentenced to four months in prison in 2005),[4] the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit, and the payment by Boeing of a $615 million fine in recompense for their actions related to the contract. In January 2006, the lease contract was formally canceled.

    United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yet here we are many years later and many millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars spent with nothing to show for it and ready for the next round of bids on this Aircraft. The end result will be another protest by one of the parties in this bid and still more delays to the military to replace a very old aircraft that should have been replaced years ago. This is an example of how Govt. wastes money and time on a massive scale and in this case it puts lives in danger. There have been many suggestions as to ways to settle this matter and get it done, some say the best way is to just purcahse half from Boeing and half from EADS. However, I have come to the conclusion that the best way is to award the contract to both of them to assemble an agreed upon Aircraft, be it the KC767 or KC-45 jointly so that the warfighters, and the taxpayers can finally settle this matter once and for all. I also started this thread to show this as an example of how our Govt. spends literally billions for nothing, want another example look at Yucca Mtn. 30 Billion for a hole that will never be used.
     
  2. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Stu Pugh, a retired Air Force officer and former chief of Tanker Operations at the Tanker Airlift Control Center, has endorsed Boeing's 767-based tanker over a rival plane.

    Pugh praised Boeing as "the only proven manufacturer that comes close to meeting all the needs with an off-the-shelf aircraft" in a comment on Boeing's tanker blog, highlighted Monday by Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale.

    "Though I would rather see the engineers design a new platform to replace the 135, this is cost prohibitive, and the 767 comes as close as we can get to a real multi-role tanker replacement for the KC-135," he wrote.

    Specifically, Pugh played down the advantage of the competing Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker's greater fuel-carrying capacity.

    Former Air Force tanker officer endorses Boeing

    In the soon-to-be immortal words of Sen. Daniel Inouye: “Nothing ever dies” on Capitol Hill. That was Inouye’s response Thursday afternoon when a reporter asked the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman if the split buy for a tanker was dead.

    Pressed, the senator who often speaks like a seer, finally admitted that the split buy did appear to be really dead for this session of Congress since it was not even a subject for conference discussions.

    DoD Buzz | Tanker Split Buy Dead, For Now

    It would appear this latest round will result in the same thing that all the other rounds resulted in spent money with no results.
     

Share This Page