KC-30 Supporters Hit New Low

Fresh from swift boating General Handy, KC-30 supporters hit a new low this week by forming a front group called Alabamians to Build American Tankers (ABAT). They are running a smear campaign with radio ads and have set up their own website at bettertanker.org.

Here is the text of the ads:

Ad #1 - Alabamian Confronts Boeing
MAN: Boeing deserves the Air Force Refueling Tanker project because it's an American company employing American workers.
ANNCR: And Alabama where a better tanker would be built isn't in America?
MAN: You know what I mean, no sense creating new jobs in Alabama when we can do the work up in Washington State.
ANNCR: So 2500 new jobs in Alabama wouldn't help our national economy?
MAN: You can't build planes in Alabama.
ANNCR: Your company trusts Alabama workers to build high tech weapons, rockets and space vehicles.
MAN: But our Boeing planes are ready now.
ANNCR: Ready now? You mean the ones you promised Italy four years ago? Are those ready yet?
MAN: Hey, we're Boeing.
ANNCR: And the Alabama plane is newer, with better technology.
MAN: Hey, we're Boeing.
ANNCR: And the Alabama plane can carry more fuel, more passengers and more supplies.
MAN: Hey, we're Boeing.
ANNCR: Is that all you can say?
MAN: What else can I say? Clearly Alabama has a better tanker.
ANNCR: Paid for by Alabamians to Build American Tankers

Ad #2 - Boeing Can't Win
EFCT: Sound of jet engine whining along coming in several times during the ad
ANNCR: It seems like every time we hear about Boeing and military contracts we hear about cheating. The reason we are still trying to replace our aging refueling tankers is because Boeing executives were involved in a scandal of bribery and cheating in the last bid. Our Air Force is working hard to protect our country but it appears that Boeing's corporate policy is "if Boeing can't win no one can"...and that means our troops lose.
EFCT: Engine sputtering
ANNCR: May day may day
ANNCR: Paid for by Alabamians to Build American Tankers

Ad #3 - Alabama Can be Trusted
ANNCR: Boeing says America's in danger if Alabamians build refueling tankers for our troops. Boeing claims military technology will wind up overseas. Boeing's one to talk. Last February their engineer was arrested for sending trade secrets to Communist China. And, in June, the FBI caught a Boeing scientist with top secret defense information on his personal laptop. No telling where those secrets were going.
ANNCR: At lease we can keep a secret in Alabama. Paid for by Alabamians to Build American Tankers.

Just who is ABAT and who is funding them?

We would guess the members are a select group of people who either have been brainwashed by the local papers and pandering politicians or those who would benefit from an Airbus facility in Mobile. This seems to be the case as a news story on ABAT lists Mobile locals Bryan Lee, attorney/lobbyist Palmer Hamilton, real estate developer Paul Wesch, and accountant Mike Thompson as members.

We will not venture a public guess on who is funding them, but we probably all know who that is already.

We do know for sure that a PR firm that is doing work for ABAT is Strategy Public Relations in Mobile Alabama. And, a Ms. Krista Burroughs appears to be running at least the website efforts of this shameful campaign.

On Strategy's website it states Krista has:

"over 17 years experience in public relations, Krista is responsible for supervising our production quality and makes sure client services are delivered on schedule and on budget. In addition, she possesses strong and diversified managerial and administrative skills, over seeing day-to-day agency operations. Krista is also proficient in desktop and graphic design, having developed a number of various collateral and time-sensitive pieces. She is a certified webmaster, specializing in the industrial and entertainment field, and serves on the board of directors for the Mobile International Festival."

Well, she can now add outrageous propaganda director, EADS/Airbus apologist, and corporate attack ad specialist to that resume.

If you would like to comment either for or against her work please feel free to e-mail her at krista@strategy-pr.com, call (251) 432-9200, or even fax (251) 432-9209.

The two other members of the firm can be reached at dave@strategy-pr.com and jon@strategy-pr.com. You can track down the actual ABAT members and contact them on your own if you wish, but remember the old Southern saying about wrestling with a pig. You both end up dirty, but only your opponent enjoys it.

Boeing issued this response to the ABAT ads:

We have no idea who this group is or how it is funded. Boeing is the largest aerospace employer in Alabama. These ads are an affront to our more than 3,000 hard-working, highly-talented employees and their families in the state. They are also clearly a sign of desperation in support of our competitor. The ads do a disservice to our customer, the men and women who serve our country, more than 160,000 Boeing employees, and to Northrop-Grumman/EADS.

The GAO ruled that the recent tanker competition was seriously flawed and that the award to Northrop-Grumman/EADS should be recompeted. Our focus will remain on the new competition and getting the best technology to the warfighter and the best value to the U.S. taxpayer.

It is good to see Boeing taking the high road, but very disheartening to see some KC-30 supporters creating new ways to sink even lower.

(If anyone needs to know who really has the better tanker they can visit us at Tanker War Blog anytime.)

HAC-D Mark-up Analysis

There has been some reporting of the HAC-D bill mark-up tanker language mainly focused on the subcommittee's press release and the statement that it directs industrial base concerns be included in the evaluation.

Chairman Murtha's statement that the subcommittee "directs the DoD to comply with the GAO findings concerning the tanker award protest" is only now being highlighted. It should, as this limitation is probably the more important of the two provisions.

Among the bills provisions, that have already been reported, is limitation language that requires:

No consideration will be provided for exceeding key performance parameter objectives.

That DoD will more accurately determine most probable life-cycle costs over a 40- year life cycle.

The the winner of the competition be able to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft.

Undersecretary Young has previously stated he will give this extra credit; we'll see what happens next.

HAC-D Mark-up Today

Today at 11:00AM ET the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense will mark-up its FY 2009 Defense Appropriations bill.

If you remember our post in April, the FY09 budget has the Air Force request of $831.759 M for the "Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft", which is a new budget item. (Source: pg 34, line #83 of FY09 RTD&E Programs Budget) There is also available in FY09 $239.8 M from the "Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund," which are funds remaining from FY05 and FY08 appropriations that went unspent.

Since the decision to recompete the contract, SecDef Gates had requested all FY2009 tanker funds be move to the Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.

We will not opine as to what the Subcommittee will do in mark-up other to say that there should be active discussion on the amount tanker funding the Air Force needs given that the procurement has been delayed. Also, there may be some limitations placed on the tanker funding.

A limitation places a restriction on the expenditure of funds provided in an appropriations bill, either by setting a spending ceiling, or by prohibiting the use of funds for a specified purpose(s). Congress is not required to provide funds for every agency or purpose authorized by law. It may provide funds for some activities or projects under an agency, but not others. Precedents require that the language be phrased in the negative, for example, that none of the funds provided in this paragraph (typically an account) shall be used for a specified activity.(Source: Walter Kravitz, Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary: Third Edition, pp. 139-140)

Limitations included in the text of the legislation are legally binding; limitations provided only in the committee reports and managers’ statements are not legally binding, but are routinely followed.

At this point in the Tanker War nothing is routine, and language short of law will could very well be ignored by DoD. So, we expect the any tanker limitations to be in the legislation not just be report language.

Any cuts to or limitations placed on the tanker funding will be the first legislative action on the tanker issue since the GAO issued its decision. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense is not scheduled to mark-up their bill until September.

More Air Force Resignations

AP is reporting that the Special Assistant for Acquisition Governance and Transparency to the Secretary of the Air Force Kenneth E. Miller has resigned.

Mr. Miller is no stranger to Tanker War Blog and it is report that he is under investigation for leaking procurement information prior to its approved release.

In May we did a post we on him and his role in the tanker war. We had heard he may be retiring this summer, but are still surprised it has taken this long to show him the door.

Also, reported earlier today was the resignation of William C. "Bill" Anderson the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

Mr. Andrerson's office had given some unsatisfactory answers to members of Congress about KC-30 Milcon costs, but this was a minor issue. We do not know of any big tanker related issues connected to his resignation.

At this point, most people here in DC are taking him for his word that the resignation is due to lack of leadership backing "necessary to lean forward to aggressively support" the service's Airmen. Given that Mr. Anderson clashed with a KC-30 supporter on joint-basing it rings very true.

Tanker News 28 July

The following tanker related items caught our eye:

Wash Post: Pentagon Auditors Pressured To Favor Contractors, GAO Says
Key passage:

The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which oversees contractors for the Defense Department, "improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions and opinions" of reviews of contractor performance, the GAO said, creating a "serious independence issue."

The report does not name the projects or the contractors involved, but staff members on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who were briefed on the findings cited seven contractors, some of whom are among the biggest in the defense industry: Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Fluor, Parker Hannifin, Sparta, SRS Technologies and a subsidiary of L3 Communications.

It is hard for us to understand how KC-30 supporters, both here and abroad, could bash the GAO and label their tanker contract protest decision as biased. Seems like the GAO is not afraid to call either side, or both, out if they think something is wrong.

China.org.cn : 1st Airbus segments arrive in Tianjin
Key passage:

The first aircraft segments for a planned Airbus A320 arrived in the new single-aisle assembly line in Tianjin on Friday from the Airbus production sites in Europe, Xinhua News Agency reported.

The segments include the forward and rear fuselage section, a pair of wings, the horizontal and vertical tailplane and engine pylons.

The assembly process of the first aircraft, which is for Sichuan Airlines, will start in August 2008. Delivery of the aircraft is scheduled for the first half of 2009. It hopes to begin producing four A320 planes a month by 2011.

Heck, why don't we just cut out the Mobile middleman and get Chinese assembled Airbus planes for the new tanker. At least then we can stop having to pretend an Airbus A330 can somehow magically be turned into an American made tanker.

Czech News: Czech Chief of Staff against purchase of EADS CASA planes
Key passage:

In June, Alenia Aeronautica lodged a complaint with the EC, the Czech anti-monopoly office (UOHS) and the Defence Ministry, challenging the Czech government's decision to buy transport planes for the military from EADS.

Alenia Aeronautica's representatives in the Czech Republic said the planned deal had breached the EU's principles of transparency and no discrimination in placing public orders.

Like the article above, this is not a tanker story per say, but it is good to know we are not the only country having procurement transparency problems when buying EADS aircraft.

Air Force Nominations Hearing Analysis

At the Senate Armed Services Committee nominations hearing today, a number of questions on the tanker were asked.

Senator John Warner (R-VA) juxtaposed Donley’s statement that the Air Force’s procurement system was not “fatally flawed” with the GAO’s recent report of the procedure’s “significant errors” as the foundation for his examination of the nominee:

“To me, when you make a statement that it is not fatally flawed against a background of a lot of problems, I find a lot of disconnect.”

Donley replied by reasserting that he did not see gross misconduct. Still, disagreements over the severity of the problems aside, Donley fully admitted that drastic changes needed to be made:

“While I do not believe the Air Force acquisition is fatally flawed, GAO’s findings are troubling. They indicate the need for changes that will ensure we are better prepared in the future to more fully document the details of source selections such that Air Force decisions will successfully withstand protests and thereby restore confidence in the acquisition process.”

As a remedy, Donley suggested specific fixes intended to improve the system:

“I have directed the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) to identify the lessons learned from the recent GAO decision on KC-X, and previous decisions in which protests were sustained, and outline a near-term plan for improvement that will strengthen the major program and source selection decisions pending for later this year. I also plan two 90-day reviews of the Air Force acquisition process, one internal and one external, to recommend opportunities for longer-term improvement.”

Given the current state of Air Force procurement, and the reports that the Air Force has a closed mind going into the new tanker competition, Tanker War Blog believes only more house cleaning of personnel will ensure “longer-term improvement”.

There are just too many people in Air Force procurement who don't get how badly they failed or truly understand the dire consequences of having EADS think they somehow now deserve the tanker contract. More EU lobbying anyone?

Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY) provided a poignant critique of the Air Force’s procurement system by questioning how Title 10, Subtitle A, PART IV, CHAPTER 144, § 2440 of the U.S. Civil Code, which requires the consideration of the US industrial base when granting contracts, was ignored during the tanker competition.

Donley lamely stated that it would be impossible to do so because “we live in a global economy,” adding that “attempting to go with U.S. sources only in particular situations where it seems to advantage one company over another is really a temporary perspective.”

His argument for not considering Title 10, especially in light of our country’s current economic situation, was quickly countered by Clinton.

She said her fear is that the decision to not consider Title 10 “will come back to haunt us” economically. She stated she was, "also extremely conscious of the impact of decisions made by our government with taxpayer dollars that undermines our competitiveness for the long run."

Not satisfied with Donley's answers, and running out of time to leave for a vote on the Senate floor, Clinton stated that she would submit further questioning for the record.

Another highlighted procurement controversy at the hearing was the Air Force's Senior Leader In-Transit Comfort Capsules. Senator McCaskill seized upon this as another example of a mindset that prizes appearance over mission, much like the Thundervision scandal.

There may be a KC-30 tanker connection to the this mindset as two of Australian A330 tankers will be converted to VIP planes. How much did ability to use the KC-30 in VIP mode influence the Air Force's decision? We will have to leave that to further investigation and another post.

In conclusion, while all the nominees preformed well, it was another bad day for Air Force procurement. It was also certainly no walk in the park for those being questioned, but unless some major issues arose in the closed session we see all of the nominations being eventually confirmed. Though, we do not rule out one of the nominations being put on hold until certain procument process assurances are given.

Here are some source documents and resources from the hearing:
Donley Prepared Testimony

Gen. Schwartz Prepared Testimony

Gen. McNabb Prepared Testimony

Below is a short Pentagon Channel news report on the hearing.

Air Force Nominations Hearing Today

At 9:30 today the Senate Armed Services Commitee will hold a hearing to consider the nominations of:

Mr. Michael B. Donley
to be Secretary of the Air Force

General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF
for reappointment to the grade of general and to be Chief of Staff, United States Air Force

General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF
for reappointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, United States Transportation Command

We expect a number of tanker related questions to be asked.

C-Span will be covering the hearing but may not air the proceedings live.

The hearing is now over but the Pentagon Channel did air the hearing live.

New Boeing Tanker Ad Campaign

To counter the KC-30 team's Built. Tested. Flown. misinformation campaign we are told that today Boeing will launch ads to show that they most certainly have more than a paper design.

While the tanker delivered to Japan is a slightly different configuration of the 767 than that proposed to the Air Force, unlike the KC-30 tanker, it was been tested and certified by the FAA.

In fact, the Japanese 767 tanker is far more mature than the EADS Australian tanker program. The KC-30 team has yet to pass fuel in flight on any A330 tanker.

Also, the EADS D-1 tanker that was scheduled to be delivered to the US Air Force has none of the modifications or additions to the green A330 (cargo door, freighter floor, refueling systems, defensive systems, military com gear, etc.)have been made to their "completed" Air Force tanker.

If the KC-30 team was truthful it would put out an ad that said their tanker is Partially Built, Somewhat Tested, Flown in a Configuration far less than Complete.

It may not be catchy, but at least it would have been honest.

Tanker News 24 June

The following tanker related articles caught our eye:

Forbes: EADS In Lead For Saudi/Iraq Fence
Key passage:

Last week's report by the General Accounting Office, which criticized the process by which the fuel-tanker contract was awarded to EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman, has thrown it into doubt and it's likely that the Air Force will have to ask the companies to resubmit their proposals.

If they do go back to the drawing board there is no chance whatsoever that EADS will get the entire contract: a more likely scenario is that they will get around 25.0% of it according to Doug McVitie of Arran Aerospace.

Mr. McVitie is a former Director of Sales Intelligence for Airbus so he has some G-2 on the situation, but it would be interesting to know how he came up with 25%. Most likely this is the percentage Airbus is willing to settle for and needs to be able to set up the assembly facility in Mobile.

Politico: Air Force considers Northrop, Boeing fly-off
Key passage:

The fly-off option, which departing Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne discussed with the Reuters news service at his retirement ceremony, and the split buy are costly prospects. The fly-off would require the two companies to build planes through the prototype stage, and under the split buy, the Defense Department would have to fund two production lines...

Supporters of Northrop are pushing for a speedy reconsideration by the Air Force — and trying to ensure that members of Congress don’t step in to steer the process toward Boeing.

The company is stressing that it hasn’t lost anything yet.

Split buy, fly-off, or rebid there is no easy way out of this tanker war. We are beginning to see the KC-30 team stress that the GAO decision does not mean that their tanker should not have won, only the way the Air Force went about it was flawed. This is rather convoluted logic, but without the full GOA decision it is hard to definitely refute at this time. Also, if one believes possession is 9/10 th's of the law, an argument could be made that until the Air Force completes the rebid, the KC-30 team still has the contract.

Human Events: How to Buy the Tanker
Key Passage:

The government is supposed to buy what it needs, not what it wants. And – in the case of combat systems, among which the tanker is certainly counted – the needs have to be defined by the warfighters. The government’s request for contractor proposals is supposed to define those needs in terms specific enough to enable the contractors to compete by offering the aircraft that best meets the precise need. But the Air Force -- bowing to political pressure -- crafted a specification so vague that two vastly different aircraft could arguably qualify under it.

Listing this article at the end is in keeping with the spirit of saving the best for last. Once again Mr. Babin offers great insight and expertise in dissecting the Air Force tanker contract decision

Where is the Tanker Maintenance Outrage?

A recurring comment we hear from KC-30 supporters, and in particular those from a certain state the KC-30 may eventually be assembled, is that Boeing lost and should, "Just get over it."

We at Tanker War Blog understand this frustration to a certain extent, but we really think that such outrage should be saved for a far more deserving and local company; Alabama Aircraft Aircraft Industries, Inc (AAII), formally known as Pemco Aviation.

Because, no matter how much one thinks Boeing's protest is holding up the delivery of new tankers, using that same logic, AAII's actions have been much worse.

As most readers to this blog know, the KC-X, now called the KC-45, will eventually replace the current Eisenhower era KC-135s. In 2007, Alabama Aircraft lost the Air Force maintenance contract for the KC-135 to Boeing. Alabama Aircraft then protested this decision and forced the Air Force to stop Boeing's work on the KC-135 maintenance covered by the contract.

Reuters reports that this stop work order was only lifted late last week:

"As a result of the GAO's decision, the suspension on your award of 10 Sep 2007 is hereby lifted," the Air Force told Boeing in a document obtained by Reuters.

Alabama Aircraft,...had won its first protest against the contract award in December, but filed a second protest in March after the Air Force again awarded the contract to Boeing.

So Boeing rightfully protests a replacement tanker contract, and KC-30 supporters have all but started to blame them for the deaths of tanker crews. But, Alabama Aircraft has been holding up KC-135 tanker maintenance since September 2007 and they are given a pass!

Not getting new tankers as fast as one may like is regrettable, but not being able to fix the old tankers you do have, and that desperately need repair, is worse; much, much worse.

Also, don't think for a second that Alabama Aircraft Industry, Inc. has given up. No, in fact according to Aero-News.net:

AAII President Ron Aramini issued a statement explaining, "While we are disappointed with the GAO's latest decision, we fully intend to continue to press our case until the Air Force has conducted a full and fair evaluation of proposals. We believe that a proper evaluation would result in the selection of AAII as the highest quality and lowest cost source for the maintenance of the Air Force's KC-135 fleet."

So two GAO rulings and two Air Force contract selections are not enough to satisfy those in the Alabama aerospace industry?

By that standard you would expect them to wait patiently and quietly while Boeing is allowed to go a couple more rounds with the GAO and Air Force. But, that of course assumes these Airbus/EADS supporters don't have a double standard, or are not just using aircrew safety as a PR pandering gimmick.

If the Tanker Doesn't Fit...

After a long ago requested but delayed briefing precipitated by Jed Babbin's article Too Big, Too Heavy a member of our team was given information on the possible construction cost related with purchasing the much larger KC-30.

During the brief she was provided Google Earth satellite imagery as visual evidence to show the many problems that will be associated with replacing the KC-135 with the much larger KC-30.

As you can see from the photos, unlike the KC-767, the KC-30 footprint does not allow space for taxiing, and precludes parking on many pads. In many places the KC-30 nose is consistently beyond the pad cement.

It should also be remembered that in addition to the size/spacing issue, there are many problems a heavier aircraft presents the classified Pavement Classification Number (PCN) or strength rating of the runway, taxiways or airport ramps. Some of these ramps and taxiways may not even be able to support a heavier tanker.

If dear departed Johnnie Cochran were around to argue the case before the GAO we think he would have said a little something like this, "If the tanker doesn't fit, you must the contract quit."

In the GAO case at least, he would be right.

News Team 4 Exclusive: Tanker Fight Exposed

We would like to direct our readers to TAnchorman's blog (pronounced tankerman) where News Team 4 has a new exclusive.

It seems as they were able to get their hands on a HASC transcript that contains a portion of a Team KC-30 post-fight conversation which was recorded last month.

Gen. McNabb was right, everyone should just calm down before this gets out of hand again.

TAnchorman Exclusive Video

Please visit TAnchorman's blog where he has an exclusive video of a 1/16 model test of new Maximum-On-Ground (MOG) enhancement procedures to accommodate the larger KC-30 tanker.

Name the Tanker Contest

Today Air Force senior leaders are asking all Airmen for suggestions on a name for the service's newest tanker aircraft, the KC-45A.

"I've asked that we seek our Airmen's help to find a name for the KC-45," said Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne. "I prefer the name emphasize our heritage or our future horizon, but I'm most interested to see what our Airmen suggest."

As the future operators of the KC-45A, Air Mobility Command officials gathered many good suggestions from personnel in their units. Those submissions will be on the list of names considered during final selection. However, the opportunity to submit proposed names is now open to all Air Force personnel. Until May 30, active duty, Guard and Reserve Airmen, as well as Air Force government civilians, can submit their suggestions to namethetanker@pentagon.af.mil.

We at Tanker War Blog think that naming a plane when the contract is still in protest is a bit premature to say the least. But, we will hold our own informal contest for naming the EADS KC-30. All Airmen and the general public can send their entries to tankerblog@gmail.com.

Suggested names must be brief, no more than two short words. Along with the suggestion, entrants must include a brief explanation for their idea.

All entries are due by 30 May, and TAnchorman will post the best submissions on 1 June. He will also periodically provide contest updates on his site here.

The comments section for this post has been closed so please visit TAnchorman's site if you have input.

V-22 Refueling Issue Continued

We have received a great number of e-mails and comments on the V-22 refueling issue. In this post we will address some of the comments, summarize questions that seem to be still unanswered, and specify those issues on which we have conflicting information.

1) An anonymous post took us to task for declaring, "that the Marine Corps and the Special Operations community are up in arms," when no official statement has been made by either organization. Upon checking with our sources they have asked that we not get them out in front of their high headquarters on this issue and that we simply state that a number of people within those organizations were very surprised to learn the EADS aircraft could not refuel the V-22. We have since made that edit to our previous post.

2) Another e-mail asked under what flight parameters can the Boeing tanker refuel the V-22. The answer is that we do not know exactly. None of us at Tanker War Blog are refueler pilots but since the Air Force slide says, "throughout entire flight envelope," we are under the assumption that it can refuel the V-22 under all conditions. (Note: if you are a tanker pilot and want to help us with posts please e-mail us at tankerblog@gmail.com to offer your services.)

3) Mr. F. You from Alabama sent a comment that we can not post due to his very colorful language, but he did make a claim that we will reverify. Specifically he stated that the ability to refuel the V-22 was not part of the evaluation process. We were given the impression that it was. Since we do not currently have the source document stating V-22 refueling was, or was not, a discriminator we feel we owe it to our readers to research this and get back to you with an update. [Update: See John S. comments below. He provides the link to the source document where tilt rotor refueling is listed as an Object KPP (a disciminator that is desirable but not mandatory).]

4) A number of you felt that this issue was a bit of a red herring. From what information we have been given to date we don't believe this to be the case, but if it turns out to be a non-issue we will be glad to post such findings. We continue to believe EADS has enough faults that we don't need to manufacture any for them.

5) A number of others asked what was the specific reason the EADS aircraft could could not refuel the V-22. We are currently still researching this. Some have commented that it was due to stall speed, several people sent us that it was due to the turbulence of a larger aircraft, one person told us it was due to the refueling attachment (drouge?). The truth is we don't the reason know for sure yet, but we hope to have a clearer picture soon. [Update: NG now claims that their aircraft can also refuel the V-22. The only problem is that the Air Force has not changed their postion that it can't. Our view remains that until the Air Force says the NG/EADS aircraft can refuel the V-22 the issue is still very open.]

Boeing Protests

Thanks to our friends at the Center for Security Policy we now have a copy of the publicly releasable version of the Boeing protest.

Contrary to public option, Boeing contends that the competition was very close and the EADS won only because the Air Force misapplied the selection criteria and disregarded sections of the Request for Proposal.

Congress now has a decision to make will they try to nullify/not fund the contract now or wait for the GAO to hopefully rule in favor of Boeing.

It should be noted that a freeze was automatically made on the contract award under federal regulations due to the protest. But, those same rules gave the Air Force leeway to resume work in certain circumstances prior to the GAO ruling. The fact the Air Force is not fighting the freeze probably means they don't want to antagonize Congress again so soon. (Don't make them mad when next year's budget is currently being discussed.)

Our guess is given what Boeing says in their protest, Congress will make threats but will not move on the issue until the GAO rules on the dispute which could be in 3 months. (GAO has 100 days, June 19th, to make a ruling.)