Tommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 19767 times:
"To ask people to bid fixed prices on things that may not materialize until 18 years in the future is simply absurd," he said. He said Boeing officials saw Northrop's letter as "some sort of a maneuver," but they shared the concerns about the amount of risk the contractors were expected to carry.
It's just as absurd for taxpayers to take on this risk. No airline or business would do it. When they say this stuff, you can tell with almost 100% certainty that the bid prices are not realistic and will be exceeded. How can they sell fleets of aircraft to well run airlines years out at a fixed price, but not to the taxpayer?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12340 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 19647 times:
The current articles are clearer: NG is NOT going to bid if the RFP doesn't change significantly, and the DoD is saying that's not going to happen!
Northrop Grumman told the Pentagon Dec. 1 it will not bid for the USAF replacement aerial tanker under the existing request for proposals (RFP).
The decision - reminiscent of an earlier maneuver in the tanker saga - apparently still could be reversed if the Air Force RFP was "substantially" changed, according to comments made in a letter from Northrop President and COO Wes Bush to the top defense acquisition official, USAF secretary and deputy defense secretary.
Defense leaders let it be known recently that changes to the source-selection plan for the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion KC-X program were not likely to be substantial. Northrop executives have complained that the 373 pass/fail requirements outlined for qualification in the competition equally weigh less important items -- such as water flow in sinks and toilets -- with critical capabilities -- such as fuel offload rates.
Northrop President and Chief Operating Officer Wes Bush told the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer on Tuesday that Northrop would not submit a bid in the competition unless the Defense Department significantly changed the terms.
Bush told Ashton Carter, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, in a letter dated Dec. 1 that Northrop remained concerned that the current terms showed a preference for an aircraft smaller than the A330-based tanker it had offered previously with Airbus parent EADS.
As written, the terms also imposed a structure that "places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept," Bush said.
He said the Pentagon had told Northrop it did not plan to issue a second draft, and its responses to Northrop's questions did not appear responsive.
"As a result, I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid to the department for the KC-X program," he said in the letter, which was released by the company.
The Defense Department said it regretted the move and hoped Northrop and EADS would return to the process when the final terms were announced.
Tommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 19594 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 4): 1. no airline is buying stuff out to 18 years
2. the military always change specs
The initial order is for only 80 tankers. At 12-15 tankers per year as planned, that's only a span of 5-7 years. Some commercial orders are over longer periods than that and some involve more frames, like Ryan Air's order for 200 B737s. EK's order for 53 A380s also comes to mind, etc....I'm sure there are many examples. How about Boeing's 787 sales of over 800 frames and Airbus' sale of 500 A350s.
They can do that but not sell 80 to the taxpayer at fixed costs? There is only one reason I can think of to complain....they will under bid and pass on the true costs to taxpayers. I'm talking about Boeing here too. Both are just as guilty and it's time to represent the true costs of these programs to the Congress so they can make an informed decision and not be fooled into something and then stab taxpayers in the back later.
Quote: In a written statement, the Defense Department said it regretted "that Northrop-Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the tanker competition and hope they will return" when the request for proposal is issued, which it expects in January. Northrop's partner, Airbus, is owned by Paris-based European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
The Defense Department said both companies suggested changes to its request for proposal that would favor their own planes.
"Both companies can make a good tanker. The department wants competition but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete," the statement said.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7065 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 19473 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): The trick was avoiding rewarding the superior capabilities the A330 offers over the 767.
Protectionism. That is how the world will probably judge the process.
Ok, lets see if I got this right.
1. Air Force gives Boeing an illegal lease for 100 tankers, US Congress jumps in, deal is cancelled, Boeing officials go to jail. Protectionism of the highest order.
2. Air Force puts out an RFP, NG / Airbus protest that the RFP favours Boeing's smaller tanker and does not favour their larger a/c, Air Force changes the RFP to favour the larger a/c. Once again protectionism of the highest order, now for the other side of the pond.
3. NG/ Airbus wins the RFP, but the GAO finds that the Air Force violated the rules of its own competition / RFP rules to give the victory to NG / Airbus, protectionism once again to Airbus.
4. New RFP is done, NG / Airbus now starts again at 2 above. Its a circle.
When NG / Airbus won the competition their supporters claimed that the Air Force did a professional jobs and that they were not being protectionist in spite of political pressure. The Air Force wants the NG/Airbus tanker, if they did not they would have followed the rules of their RFP and let the chips fall where they may, instead they put in a fix. The DOD removed then put them back in charge without any personnel adjustment - as fas as I read - so why would the Air Force brass now do a 180 against their favoured vendor, if we claim political pressure then we are disclaiming their proffesionalism which we praised when NG / Airbus won. Just does not sound right.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 5): The A330 will sell anyway. Airbus will have to look for a new A330F conversion / FAL location.
I thought the A330F was already offered, had customers and was going to be built in France, the US line would be additional, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think customers were told that the product would be delayed if the US did not select an Airbus tanker.
The harsh reality is that they are dissimilar a/c in terms of size, the US unlike any other military already has huge cargo capacity, so the only advantage the larger a/c really has that is of value is the amount of fuel to offload, cargo numbers are less relevant. I'll repeat what I said in another thread, this project should not be put out to bid since there are no off the shelf a/c of similar size by each vendor, and the size will matter as the facilities have to be upgraded for one and not for the other.
The 767 appeared before the A330, the A330 "killed" the 767 market by upsizing and offering more range and payload, that principle has to carry over to the military competition as well, whether it is just as important remains to be seen.
Skysurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 19443 times:
So why doesn't the US Government admit that they want a Boeing product and just get it over with? If the NG/Airbus product was ever even considered then there'd be hell to pay from the 'protectionist' people! Hell, whilst we're at it lets put tariffs on Canadian lumber because it hurts the american lumber industry (going against what NAFTA stands for), but wait....we'll still take all the electricity you can send us! The USAF should be free to buy whatever they feel is the right equipment for the mission, it's when the government gets involved that things get inefficient! It's a disgrace and a complete double standard...remember when a certain country objected to the war in (insert here) and all of a sudden french fries became 'freedom fries'?!?! Puhhhleasse! Buy the best investment....it might spur more innovation in the competition instead of buying an inferior product. Industry needs competition otherwise advances are never made and we all end up with garbage.
ps....b4 u flame me, my flag flies the UK which is where i'm from, but i'm living in Canada and i fully support A n B......i don't support Governemnt BS!
In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 19423 times:
Quoting Seefivein (Reply 3): I do not see that they (Boeing) want a fair bid - the link below from Seattle mentions boeing went to court to keep a maintenance contact for plane that they are suppose to bidding on to replace.
Does this imply that Boeing will not have a Tanker ready for service if they end up with the contract.
No, that's not what the article says. Boeing went to court to keep a maintenance contract for aircraft that the USAF plans to operate for many more years. Regardless of which aircraft is selected in this current tanker program, they will not be replacing the entire KC-135 fleet. There will be many KC-135s in service for years to come.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7065 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 19421 times:
Quoting Skysurfer (Reply 12): Buy the best investment....it might spur more innovation in the competition instead of buying an inferior product. Industry needs competition otherwise advances are never made and we all end up with garbage.
I have begun to question the reality of this, is it really true? Japan has been building cars in the US for decades, yet all their designs are still Japanese, where are the US designers who learned under their Japanese brethren? Rather than continue to buy US made a/c the Europeans decided to create their own company to produce their own a/c, it worked on the civilian side and they are now on the way to doing it on the military side, I am certain that the result will be the same.
Do we really believe that by the US giving their largest military contract to essentially Airbus that somehow Boeing or NG will learn to design and build better a/c, heck NG is really just the middle man in this venture.
Quoting Skysurfer (Reply 12): So why doesn't the US Government admit that they want a Boeing product and just get it over with?
As of right now the US govt. has been the peacemaker in this project, they stopped the Air Force from giving an illegal lease to Boeing and stopped the Air Force from violating their own rules to give the contract to NG / Airbus, if anything the US govt. should be commended for being impartial and letting the rules, regulations and laws take its course.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 19391 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 15): Do we really believe that by the US giving their largest military contract to essentially Airbus that somehow Boeing or NG will learn to design and build better a/c, heck NG is really just the middle man in this venture.
However, the requirements should be written in a way that is impartial.
And by that, you don't write them in such a way that it discounts the advantages that one side may have - in order to make the playing field level. That's discrimination.
It would be like in an office, setting a policy that is equal for everyone, but still discriminatory or unfair to some people.
If one side has a product that better matches the specs, then so be it. But it shouldn't be because the specs have been rewritten to discount advantages that the other side might have. I would hope this would be about choosing the best product, rather than the most politically correct one.
It may well be that someone decides that it is all to difficult, and that the contract doesn't get awarded to anyone.
Rubbish, all long term commercial aircraft contracts are indexed, these clauses are from a real contract.
4 PRICE REVISION
[...***...], the Base Price of the Aircraft is subject to revision up to
and including the Delivery Date, in accordance with the Seller Price
The formula is taken from published goverment indexes.
Quote: SELLER PRICE REVISION FORMULA
1 BASE PRICE
The Base Price of the ****** Aircraft is quoted in Clause ****** and of
the ****** Aircraft in clause ****** of the Agreement. Each Base Price is
subject to adjustment for changes in economic conditions as measured by
data obtained from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and in accordance with the provisions hereof.
2 BASE PERIOD
The Base Price of the Aircraft has been established in accordance with the
average economic conditions prevailing in ******, ******, ******
and corresponding to a theoretical delivery in ******
as defined by [...***...] and [...***...] index values indicated
[...***...] and [...***...] index values indicated herein will not be
subject to any revision.
Labor Index: [...***...]
Material Index: [...***...]
4 REVISION FORMULA
5 GENERAL PROVISIONS
The [...***...] average and the [...***...] average will be computed to
the first decimal. If the next succeeding place is five (5) or more, the
preceding decimal place shall be raised to the next higher figure.
Each quotient shall be rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth (4 decimals).
If the next succeeding place is five (5) or more, the preceding decimal
place shall be raised to the next higher figure.
The final factor will be rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth
The final price will be rounded to the nearest whole number (0.5 or more
rounded to 1).
5.2 Substitution of Indexes for Aircraft Price Revision Formula
(i) the United States Department of Labor substantially revises the
methodology of calculation of the labor index [...***...] or
material index [...***...] as used in this Exhibit G, or
(ii) the United States Department of Labor discontinues, either
temporarily or permanently, such labor index [...***...] or
material index [...***...] index, or
(iii) the data samples used to calculate such labor index [...***...] or
material index [...***...] are substantially changed;
the Seller will select a substitute index for inclusion in the Seller
Price Revision Formula (the "Substitute Index").
The Substitute Index will reflect as closely as possible the actual
variance of the labor costs or of the material costs used in the
calculation of the original labor index [...***...] or material index
[...***...] as the case may be.
As a result of the selection of the Substitute Index, the Seller will make
an appropriate adjustment to the Seller Price Revision Formula to combine
the successive utilization of the original labor index [...***...] or
material index [...***...] (as the case may be) and of the Substitute
5.3 Final Index Values
The Index values as defined in Paragraph 4 above will be considered final
and no further adjustment to the basic prices as revised at delivery of
the applicable Aircraft will be made after delivery of the applicable
Aircraft for any subsequent changes in the published index values.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Tommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 19255 times:
Zeke, I don't think you quite understand the distinction of what I'm talking about:
What NG and Boeing are complaining about is that the USAF wants them to take on cost over run risks, among other things. Why don't you quote the relevant part that NG and Boeing are complaining about? That would be in context to what I said.
No airline would enter into a contract where the airlines takes on the cost in the event of a cost over run. Show me one. You can't.
Cargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 19252 times:
Call me naive, but is there a chance this is not protectionist and simply a request for what the USAF wants?
Basically, something to replace the KC-135 that is...
Similar in size to the -135
Can do the -135 mission as well or slighlty better than the -135
Cheaper in terms of initial purchase price and long term costs
Better cargo capabilities than the -135, but extra capacity is more of a bonus than a necessity
In these categories the 767 is the better ( or good enough) selection. The extra size, capability, and cost of the A330 are a significant disadvantage when competing in a KC-135 replacement competition.
I'm not arguing that the 767 is the better tanker, but given the criteria and what the USAF wants, I think its the better tanker for this competition.
I think its great that the USAF is looking for a plane that is 'good enough' instead of something that has to be 'next generation/top of the line.' It saves us some money and gets us what we want.
Tommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 19229 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 18): Rubbish, all long term commercial aircraft contracts are indexed, these clauses are from a real contract.
Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 2): t's just as absurd for taxpayers to take on this risk. No airline or business would do it. When they say this stuff, you can tell with almost 100% certainty that the bid prices are not realistic and will be exceeded. How can they sell fleets of aircraft to well run airlines years out at a fixed price, but not to the taxpayer?
Zeke, in the future, please quote me in context. No commercial airline would take on development and program cost over run risks. It's much more than taking on only index risks. I hope you understand the difference, as it's a distinction *with* a difference.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 19198 times:
Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 2): "To ask people to bid fixed prices on things that may not materialize until 18 years in the future is simply absurd," he said. He said Boeing officials saw Northrop's letter as "some sort of a maneuver," but they shared the concerns about the amount of risk the contractors were expected to carry.
You don't know the feature for which the USAF demands fix prices. You assume its for aquisition but that is only your assumption. You can't take that for granted. Therefore your line of reasoning is problematic and likely doesn't hold water.
I won't even enter the discussion about those fix prices...because I don't know the feature for which the USAF demands fix prices too!
Someone who knows the RFP proposal very well may shed light on the fix price clauses, Zeke, TopBoom?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 19150 times:
Alabama is mad.
"All Americans should be outraged that the Obama administration has corrupted the tanker selection process with a blatantly unfair competition," Riley said, in a statement.
Northrop and partner EADS planned to assemble their tanker in Mobile, Ala., should the Air Force select it over Boeing's offering for the $35 billion contest.
"All along, we’ve said the process should be fair and the needs of our warfighters must come first. That definitely isn’t happening," Riley said. "The question is why is this RFP so radically different than the one Northrop Grumman won last year?”
I think that last staement is a big question indeed.
For yrs the USAF communicated they want a multirole logistic platform, no more long lines of unused expesive platform gaining dust.
within a yr they re specified a platform with only tanker capability of just the known fifties KC135 / KC 767 platform with a new procudure to not rewards any additional capabilities unless the price is the same.
A dramatic turn around during a time Boeing really needs support. (IDS no fresh programs / 787 billions / 737 replacement / 777 / 747 replacement).
The US is the biggest weapons Exporter not importer. Hopefully the rest of the world is understanding & doesn't see this as a nationalistic fix.
: Sadly enough this will happen. This whole process has become such a mess where the image decides a lot. If it will be Boeing, then it is a nationalis
: How is that possible and how is that real, there is discrimination in everything that is done, it is one of the reasons why folks the world over are
: That is a silly question of course. After the B787 will fly with airlines we can and should expect an increased performance over the A330, though not
: Great remarks, but it won't move the nay sayers out of their comfort zone.[Edited 2009-12-02 04:11:56]
: The 767 will be cheaper or better in long term costs? The A330 is much more advanced with more maintenance friendly systems and structures like FBW,
: The airframes are built on the A330 line in France and the militarization and testing is done in Spain. It's next to impossible to write a "fair" com
: I did not take you out of context, you claimed airlines were paying for aircraft at a fixed price. "How can they sell fleets of aircraft to well run
: 767 Backlog: Less than 60 planes. A330 Backlog: Over 350 planes.
: Where was Alabama a couple months ago when the RFP was first released, did they not read it and see the problems or were they waiting for NG to decid
: With any luck that 767 backlog number will grow to over 200 as the US applies the same level of protectionism that is practiced by France, Germany and
: Maybe this is the case for the US Air Force, I will not comment on that. But the "sillyness" was stated by me upon your original question; which was:
: The re-engine option is also on the table - at the tax payors level - because it is an ongoing project, the question is how many KC-135's will get th
: " target=_blank>http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...7.asp Go back and read or review the history here. You will find the Pemco/AAII are the ones c
: What a joke. NG is still peeved that the USAF debriefed Boeing and disclosed their pricing numbers, which in a re-bid puts them at a distinct pricing
: I was not clear. My bad. Too much wine and fun with the lady.......... Of course the Commercial contracts call for indexed price adjustments, as do m
: Exactly how old is the 767 versus the 330, compared to current a/c they are both old, and since Boeing still does not use the superior flight stick,
: I think congress forced the Dod to change the spec & home state jobs / re election / campaign funding were more important then the war fighter.
: Sheesh...it's a TANKER for heavens sake...for carrying AIRPLANE GAS!!! As long as it can carry enough for the mission detailed to it, who cares how ne
: The RFP might be written for the war-fighter, it better should be, and the previous one was. But as the representatives of state of Alabama already p
: But it will be built by a US company (NG) under US control (>62% will be US content). EADS will deliver the baseline platform and the boom, both to b
: Boeing may be trying to take the Airbus line on this one when recommending the 767, recall Airbus comment with the composite 787 a/c. Well Boeing is
: It strikes me as weird that people want to replace the KC135 with another KC135. Firstly, because neither the KC767 or KC330 has 4 engines and secondl
: I would like all economic options on the table, this is an economic situation, they can buy new a/c now, or they can buy them later, if one postpones
: Actually, many of us want re-engined KC135s! As per the above, it just hauls gas around for other planes to use. I'd rather invest in the pointy end
: They will be brand new - Boeing isn't going to take old airliners and give them a freshening up and turn them into tankers, they will be new build ai
: No permanent link, so I'm quoting this blurb in full. http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx I still feel that DOD will cave and change t
: Interestingly enough we know the thing that ends up limiting the life of the KC-135 and it's corrosion, and what are we thinking of replacing them wi
: Composite may be the way of the future but as of right now, it is new on a large scale basis - A380, B787, A350 - that the OEM's will charge a premiu
: What extra cost? Most times, wartime requirements do "give advantage" to the superior competitor. What gives? Is this about Fairness McLawyerpants, o
: Yes, I agree with the gist of your post. Though you will be surprised to find out how much longer the KC-135s can still serve. They're only flying th
: It's so interesting because when KC-135 was introduced it absolutely was state of the art, and I don't think it'd be fair to say Boeing charged a pre
: Is this really true, I am under the impression that the reasn why current military projects cost so much is because the client has to pay for a lot o
: The USAF disclosed the pricing information to Boeing after it lost last year. That is what the laws tell them they have to do. Even EADS/NG has not d
: This is the point. It can actually be argued that the entire KC-Xs concept is inferior to what we already have. What happens when a large KC-X tanker
: Apart from the same size cross section as the A300, the A330 has no similarity on a structural scale. The A300/A310 line has shut down long time ago.
: In addition to what Zeke already replied, all I have written is true, and you know that. It is even undisputed. Hell, it is one of the main reasons w
: The question is if we need those extra capabilities or not and how much do they cost us not only in aquistion costs but also things like MILCON costs
: It sounds to me like you are talking about the A400M now!
: Then they wouldn't actually be flying today's missions.
: Not if the receptor needs the boom Not if the KC-X is not there because it has been destroyed or has technical issues That may or may not be true, de
: In a sense it is the same. American's bitch that the Europeans went with a home grown project in the A400M, rejecting a built and capable American al
: This in general is very true. But the one tanker would do the job better than the other. But what you have stated is agreement with what I wrote earl
: If the KC-X entails fewer maintenance soldiers and fewer aviators, then that saves a "metric f**kton" of money, to steal a phrase. The main cost of t
: Many here seem to be unaware that the MAJORITY of the recievers in the US military use the boom and not the drogue. When you narrow it down to the US
: How is this for a war scenario: "The core problem in Pacific Vision 2008 was that even an invulnerable American fighter force ran out of missiles befo
: Why do you need a checklist in a computer? I carried mine, it was a booklet. The USAF uese booklet checklists. Are you saying the LCD flat screens of
: The devil is in the details, there are numbers and statistics, so let's play with the 3.5 number. Pilot, Co-pilot and boom operator. Since the cargo
: Revelation If you wait 10 years, then the A330/B767 will be out of the frame. It will be the A350, B787, (which Boeing says is unsuitable) or the B777
: Thats the interesting thing, The KC135R's low fuel burn due to minimal plane size for capacity gives it very good offload as you reach the longer dur
: A head to head competition between the 767-200 airframe and the A330-200 airframe is impossible. They are simply not the same capabilities. Airframe p
: The US has only one maker of large commercial a/c, that is Boeing, how exactly did they come up with the idea of a competiton for what is potentially
: There is only one refueling boom mounted to each tanker, regardless of who builds it. Therefore... more tankers = more booms. You misunderstood what
: My apologies, I should have used a smiley, I understood exactly what he meant its the reason why I made the comment about numbers and statistics. Lay
: Boom Operators are also Loadmasters. They are qualified in both disiplines, but only on their assigned tanker. You cannot use a KC-135 Boom Operator
: What an incredibale stupid and arrogant comment to make here. So all the airliners in the world replacing their B767's with (at this time) almost exc
: I'll let others defend their comments, but when I mentioned this it was because there are many 767's still in use and the reason why all have not yet
: How many B-767s has AA replaced with A-330s? DL? BA? AF? KE? JL? NH? LH? AC? UA? CO? QF (they currently fly both types, I guess keeping the B-767s to
: I think you might not be correct about QF. QF has started retiring B767 aircraft. VH-OGD has already gone to the graveyard - meanwhile, it recently t
: So do you see any operators of A330's rushing to replace them with A330's or are they signing up for the A350, 787 or 777's, the principle of replaci
: Sort of like political pressure from someone running for President put on pressure to change specs to allow NG/Airbus to compete? McCain lost the ele
: So, if the A330 is "cheaper" than the B767, then why is NG/EADS afraid of competing? The competition is not for the cheaper PLANE but cheaper OVERALL
: Many airlines have, and many are still doing so, and you are in denial of a fact which everybody worldwide acknowledges. Tha
: That was many, many years ago. Some of those A330's have since gone to Jetstar - while other A330s have come along to replace them. Which answers ano
: Exactly. EADS/NG can compete their A-330, if they can make it meet the 373 mandatory requirements, which they should be able to do. Then they need to
: I will agree that anyone pulling out now can't file a complaint later. I doubt this is about walking away from the process but is more likely about pr
: If we go by the commercial sector I don't believe that the A330 is within 1% or - of anything related to the 767, I use the 767 because Boeing has al
: Huh? With the exception of the M777 howitzer which I presume you refer to, which is built in the factory I work in, is the ONLY weapon of its type an
: Well, it is not just BAE Systems that builds systems or parts of systems for the US. Ever heard of Krupp of Germany (hint one of their products sunk
: So the only benefit a European or UK business gets from opening and operating a branch in the US is publicity and nothing economic whatsoever, unless
: I responding directly to a comment about BAE Systems, which was not accurate. I actually didn't say that. I was querying the logic of worrying about
: Because even Boeing is admitting it is a stacked deck ... "requirements for a new aerial refueling tanker favor a 767"
: Your statement is also assuming the B-767 (or A-330) have had no aerodynamic improvements or improvements to engines since they entered airliner serv
: It isn't actually. All its doing is considering the plane at a system level. No matter what improvements the 767 has had, despite being 36% lighter,
: To make sure we are on the same track, I took your initial comment to mean that BAE Systems were leaving all their profits in the US. Unless I'm read
: ANY deal is legal, as long as the government signs up for it. The deal was a case of public corruption, for which people went to jail. Because even i
: It is. And as such, I would suggest that the profits made in the USA have been ploughed back into investments made in the USA - either acquisitions o
: I wish people would start throwing in the (appropriate) caveat when making comments like this. Said caveat being 'for certain mission profiles'. The
: And that is what foreign investment is and should be about, both sides benefit, it's why I never understood the hit BAE Systems took for increasing t
: You are taking the quote out of context. He was comparing 767 to 777 not to A330. What part of the requirements of KC-X favors the 767 compared to A3
: No it does not www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFPAM10-1403.pdf KC-135R: 10,718 lb/hr B767: 10,552 lb/hr Cheers, PP
: And thus no caveat was necessary, since we are in complete agreement.. Rgds
: Yes, the aluminum frames can last out to 80+ years, but the reason the USAF says they aren't going to do that with the KC-135Es is because reparing a
: That is not right. The extended A300 designs including the A300 based trijet were dropped, they could not make the stretch work with 2 engines on the
: Well the a/c that is being replaced the KC-135 is based on a civilian frame that did not sell well on the pax front, it had to be extended and improv
: Look, it is a serious question and I gave a serious answer. Clearly EADS is worried about history repeating itself. There is no business opportunity
: I believe that is THE question. Buying a new tanker with no RFP would have been criticized by taxpayers as being a foolish and expensive decision. Do
: The law has not changed, it has always been based on the lowest bidder concept, but there are a few exceptions. In this case, The USAF could have gon
: What's so selective about it? Protests of awards happen all the time, some are upheld, others are not (CSAR-X, KC-X). Now THAT's a selective critique
: I would say that because: 1. The procurement officer went to jail 2. The Boeing contract was canceled That Boeing was NOT successful in bribing. Ther
: So, you think the current DFRP does not write down the decision making criteria? I got a news flash for ya', it does sell it out very clearly and pla
: To bring a little perspective I think is missing in this discussion: The US military is subordinate to the civilian leadership in the Congress and Whi
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun says: It seems to me that Boeing was quite successful in committing bribery. The only thing Boeing was no
: From Newsday.com: http://www.newsday.com/columnists/ot...-bid-on-air-force-tanker-1.1642016
: Seems they have done this all over again, not to mention go against the GAO recommendations from the last round. I have not seen anything in the DRFP
: Well, at least now we won't have to deal with any messy protests! Somehow I don't think this is over yet. Well, it was inevitable the guidelines favo
: Well considering the number of things that are painted green and grey in need of replacement and or repairs, that may not be such a bad deal for the
: What GAO recommendations releast in June 2008 are/were not followed? I agree, this is far from over. But, I think EADS/NG will provide an offer. If t
: Indeed. The real issue is how much work will Boeing have to do to meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP. If they can get away with the current K
: Controversial or not, they did not only make the NG tanker look better, they underlined where exactly the NG-EADS tanker was better then the Boeing t
: I have to agree. They have put a lot of money into the KC330 and I don't think it was to win the onesy twosy orders they have been getting, it was to
: Well, when they selected the NG-EADS Tanker they clearly did. But all of that is old news.
: The current Italian KC-767A does not fit this RFP in many ways, including the ability to offload XXXXX fuel at XXX nm, compared to the KC-135R (the I
: Since the customer is also paying for the development I say it's the way to go, the days of OEM's producing their products then offering them for sal
: That's true. But, Airbus serves a role to keep Boeing an honest and productive contractor to help the Pentagon win wars, not just make megatons of mo
: If they are trying to get rid of all C-5's--why are they telling Boeing to design their new tanker boom and tanker size for the C-5's... If Boeing doe
: Not all the C-5s are being retired. About 50 C-5As are, but 1 C-5A, all C-5B/Cs will be reengined and AMP'd into the C-5M. I doubt there are any behi
: Look at it as posturing by both sides. NG will be the "boom" specialist in the EADS relationship, they are just testing their first boom, Boeing test
: Because we haven't seen it passing fuel. don't you remember? The boom ABSOLUTELY doesn't work in any way shape or form until it is actually SEEN maki
: No that is not correct, KC-135Rs will be retired as a result of KC-X as well. This is exactly what was said at the KC-X briefing. Over half of the KC
: As the USAF have dozens of C130's, C17's & C5's, not to mention chartering civilian AN124's and whatever else, how much are the KC135's & KC10's curre
: No, some people simply overlooked how bad the Boeing boom looks when applying their own criteria. By doing that, we see that in fact the Boeing boom
: Nope, cargo capacity is almost exclusively used for deployment missions. More and easier is better, but trust me when I say that most pilots would ra
: Boeing does not have a boom, wing pods, or a center line hose that meets the current spec. That does not stop them from making claims to the contrary
: Zeke, I know you love to play this game but the first 3 planes that NG was to "deliver" were NOT going to be full KC-X specification, and in fact wer
: Sorry, I don't understand this answer. I stick to my dumb "if it hasn't passed fuel on a KC-767AT it don't work". Beyond that I am not able to grasp
: The only difference between the KC-767A/J Gen. V Boom and the new Gen. VI Boom is the flow rate. That is not a difficult requirement to meet. Boeing
: Just wanted to say that this is a fair answer... I like it if you are consistent in both directions. Regardless whether I agree in the details...
: Incorrect, all SDD aircraft (4) had to be to the RFP specification. The only difference with the first 4 was they were to be assembled in Europe, NG
: “The initial contract for the newly named KC-45 is for the system design and development of four test aircraft for $1.5 billion." http://www.defense
: Didn't see this coming and I hope that this is not an issue if Northrop does stay in. The focus has to stay on the tanker. http://blog.al.com/live/200
: Sorry if its been mentioned. I didnt see any referance to it in this thread, and my knowledge in the realm of tanker replacements is lacking. Whats go
: Its dead right now as the RFP is written in a very restricted manner and there isn't a big grey area. All the requirements you must meet are now pass
: Also in the previous RFP there were a lot of requirements to be met. That the B777 would have won hands down is rubbish. The RFP was only slightly mo
: The exact wording from the RFP was "The Contractor shall accomplish all effort necessary to design, develop, test, and certify the KC-X System requir
: While that is true, none of it is beyond current technology for Boeing. Increasing the flow rate on the Boom itself is not difficult, nor is it for t
: The original requirement out of the previous RFP was for a full load taking off from a 7,000 ft runway. That the B767-AT could not do. So it is no bu
: In your reply # 147, you said MAXIMUM runway, now you are talking about MINIMUM runway. But, as you also said, that is all water under the bridge now
: Oops, my bad. I meant in the original post also minimum, but wrote maximum. My apologies.
: Not a problem, my friend. I think we all do that from time to time.
: If it was so simple why didn't they have that functionally since day one to have the same flow rate as the KC-10. Show me anywhere that says that cha
: The ITAF KC-767A offloaded some 10,000 lbs of fuel to a USAF B-52H receiver on 5 March 2007. http://www.defencetalk.com/boeing-kc...st-fuel-offload-t
: 73 contacts to offload less than 2 minutes of fuel at the normal flow rate, two years after you claimed it was done. Nope, the Parker one I have seen
: I guess it is time to call a bluff and move on posted earlier today Air Force: No major changes in tanker terms http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE
: I see another post out today about pulling out of the Tanker bid. Are they wanting to go after the new Bomber deal now UPDATE 1-EADS says not fooling
: I believe not all those contacts were on one sortie. The USAF needs to stick with the warfighter, which the RFP is written for, not EADS/NG and not B