Who will the Obamanation Administration and the Defense Department under the quisling Gates support to provide the Air Force with Badly Needed New Generation of Tankers??If we are to get the best at the best price it would seem to be Boeing that has the EQUIPMENT, FACTORIES, ENGINEERS etc ALREADY IN PLACE and READY TO GO? ? ? ?"OR" will it be some Foreign firm like EADS & Northrop Grumman that DO NOT HAVE the EQUIOMENT, FACTORIES, ENGINEERS etc for such a task and that they will have ACQUIRED & BUILT before they can build a Tanker that according to our Air Force Warfighters will be less maneuverable and can not land at as many airports all of which will make it EXTRAORDINARILY MOVE EXPENSIIVE and MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE 7 RELIABLE for our Air Force (Warfighters).Write your members of Congress to include all Minority Leaders and tell them to get their ACT TOGETHER, Lisen to our Members of the Air Vorce (Warfighters) and get them they best equipment they now desperatly need to do the JOB we have asked them to do.Congress:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/allhttp://www.opencongress.org/http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htmSource:http://townhall.com/columnists/JimMartin/2009/08/31/a_cash_for_clunkers_program_for_the_air_forceA Cash for Clunkers Program for the Air ForceJim MartinMonday, August 31, 2009When the White House and Congress wanted to take old cars off the road and replace them with newer models, they passed "Cash for Clunkers."However, when it comes to the clunkers in America's military aircraft, things are quite a bit different. For more than a decade, Congress has wrangled with how to replace our aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The planes that provide much-needed in-flight fuel to military aircraft have been in circulation since 1957. Yet, despite the desperate need for an upgrade, political gamesmanship has delayed the Air Force from trading them in.While they are not the supersonic fighter planes glamorized in movies, the Air Force simply could not do its job without these tankers.Like the efficient new sedan that was supposed to replace the old clunker, the goal of upgrading the tanker should be to replace aging equipment and obsolete technology with a better, more efficient design, at a reasonable cost and timeframe. Unfortunately, neither goal is currently being met.In a move that has since been overturned by the General Accountability Office, the Air Force procurement office announced last year that it would award the contract to build the new tanker fleet to a European firm EADS, working with American-based Northrop Grumman, that had never built a tanker, instead of American-based Boeing. This decision ignored input from "warfighters" on the actual core mission of the tanker, and according to the GAO, changed the requirements for the bids in mid-process while keeping Boeing in the dark about these changes.GAO upheld a Boeing protest of the contract award last summer. In the midst of a presidential election year, the bidding process was set back yet another year with the Pentagon setting a deadline of Oct. 1 for a new, "final" decision.Already well behind schedule, the Air Force needs to salvage the situation by deciding on selection criteria based on the best advice of our warfighters, not politicians. Then, they need to select the most capable company to build the most capable aircraft.
Views: 0
You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!
Replies