While the GAO is still reviewing the Northrop-Grumman tanker deal, opponents of the contract are already plotting their next move.
Aviation Week reports that Washington Congressman Norman Dicks is working with Pennsylvania's John Murtha on legislation that would prevent the Air Force from awarding the tanker contract to Northrop-Grumman and its European partner, EADS.
The Government Accountability Office has been scrutinizing the contract since February, when rival Boeing filed a formal protest. GAO officials are expected to release their recommendations later this week. Since the Air Force falls under the executive branch--and the GAO reports to Congress--the service isn't required to follow the recommendations of the watchdog agency. But with its legislative bosses controlling military budgets, the USAF will accept the GAO's findings.
At this point, it's unclear if the agency will uphold the original contract, or recommend re-opening the project for new bids.
But Mr. Dicks (and other Boeing supporters) aren't waiting for the GAO to release its recommendations. If the agency validates the original deal, they will try to amend a defense spending bill, and effectively will block the contract.
But "no matter what happens with the GAO, if it doesn't stop this, Congress has a responsibility to review this," Dicks told AVIATION WEEK after a House Aerospace Caucus luncheon June 12. "We're going to take whatever action we have to take."
[snip]
Dicks said some estimates have put the total lifecycle costs for the Northrop/EADS KC-45 tanker at $50 billion higher than Boeing's proposed KC-767. He complained that the acquisition process was not transparent and the Air Force misled Congress about how it evaluated the proposals (Aerospace DAILY, March 12). He and other lawmakers opposing the Northrop-EADS win have discussed trying to halt the award for months (Aerospace DAILY, April 29)."The more I get into this, the angrier I get," Dicks said.
Mr. Dicks' legislative plans are evidence that the tanker battle will continue for months after the GAO decision. General Norton Schwartz, who has been nominated as the next Air Force Chief of Staff will face a full plate of critical issues when he (presumably) takes the job later this year. But none are more important than the tanker deal. General Schwartz's ability to get a tanker contract through Congress will be one of the defining issues of his tenure.
5 comments:
If the Senators and the congressmen from Washington had any political acumen, this situation would never have arisen. War and the tools of war are too important to be left to politicians. They have neither time nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Why is it that the USAF got itself into this problem?
This never had to be "Either/Or". If only the USAF buys tankers from BOTH companies! After all, the KC-10s are getting on the age, too. The KC-45s appear to be a good match for KC-10 capabilities.
If only the USAF buys tankers from BOTH companies!
The current and projected USAF budget will support exactly one tanker. Two different tankers equals two different logistics chains, two different pilot training pipelines, et cetera. Everything would be duplicated.
Ken,
The current US inventory has over 500 KC-135s that the USAF wants to replace, on a one-to-one basis, with the KC-X. Plus the 59 KC-10s. Given that we already are operating a tanker fleet with 2 different types, replacing them with 2 different types does not seem more expensive on the O&M side.
And with the numbers we are looking at, there should be room for a mix. As KC-45s are more capable, it need not be a 1-on-1 replacement. For example, 160 KC-45s and 300 KC-737.
We can also tell GE to make the CF6-80A(737) and CF6-80E(45) to have more parts commonality to reduce the part types.
For training, the 2 can have the same flightdeck so that trainees only have to learn one knob-ology. And we can dictate the KC-45s to be on the English system instead of metric.
Unless... the KC-45 is the way USAF is going into the metric age! :)
The current US inventory has over 500 KC-135s that the USAF wants to replace, on a one-to-one basis, with the KC-X. Plus the 59 KC-10s. Given that we already are operating a tanker fleet with 2 different types, replacing them with 2 different types does not seem more expensive on the O&M side.
Given that the USAF is apparently hell-bent on pricing itself out of business with respect to force application aircraft (cough cough F-22 cough cough), the budget won't support two tankers indefinitely.
Post a Comment