Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Mixes Up KC-X Tanker Bid Information  
User currently offlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 494 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13088 times:

The next chapter in the unending saga of the KC-X bid. Due to a "clerical error," the Air Force accidentally provided Boeing with detailed data on the Airbus bid, and vice versa.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2013477326_tanker20.html

The last sentence in the report ("But another potential derailment is that the data disclosures could provide the losing bidder with grounds for an appeal.") indicates this act of incompetence may open up a whole new can of worms.

145 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13090 times:

Don't worry, nobody really wants to see the KC-135 go away anyway.

User currently offlinearluna From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 89 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 13064 times:

UNBELIEVEABLE!! People should be fired for this! The Peter Principle seems to be holding true in the USAF: "A person will rise to the level of his own incompetence." The only problem is that it will be some lower ranking enlisted person who will get the blame and not the leadership who are the ones really rsponsible.

It's time to put an end to this farce and re-engine the E models!! It would be far less expensive and far more cost effective.!


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 12889 times:

It seems both Boeing and EADS have more integrity here than the USAF. Both OEMs notified the USAF of the "clerical error".

It is time to cancel the KC-X program altogether and reengine/upgrade the KC-135Es. The USAF should also pay both Boeing and EADS for their work, engineering time, and submissions in the bid process.

I'll bet that SecDef Bob Gates is not pleased with this.

The USAF may have just violated the laws reguarding protecting propriroity information from both companies.

The history of the "Tanker Lease", "2008 KC-X", and "2010 KC-X" all lead to failures on the part of the USAF. In the past some even went to jail, and for a short time the program was removed from the USAF. This whole decade of the "new tanker" has been a nighmare for the USAF, Boeing, NG, and EADS, and mostly the American tax payers.

The looser of the 2010 KC-X contract will now surely file a GAO protest.

I am embarrassed to acknowledge I am retired from the USAF, and the tanker force. The USAF became incompetent back in 1992 when General McPeak became the COS, and has been going down hill ever since. He took a USAF that was not broken and "fixed it".


User currently offlinearluna From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 89 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 12833 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I am embarrassed to acknowledge I am retired from the USAF, and the tanker force. The USAF became incompetent back in 1992 when General McPeak became the COS, and has been going down hill ever since. He took a USAF that was not broken and "fixed


Top, you are exactly right! I, too am embarrassed by the current leadership in our Air Force. I'm a retired tanker crew chief and I continue to be proud of my time in the service but the current crop of leaders are an embarrassment.

I plan to contact my congressman and express my concerns about the incompetency and suggest that he urge congress to cancel KC-X and push for upgrading the E models. They are low time airframes and still have a lot of life left in them.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 12798 times:

Quoting arluna (Reply 4):
I plan to contact my congressman and express my concerns about the incompetency and suggest that he urge congress to cancel KC-X and push for upgrading the E models. They are low time airframes and still have a lot of life left in them.

Great idea, I will also write to my Congresswoman and the two US Senators from Texas to do the same.


User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 12729 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I'll bet that SecDef Bob Gates is not pleased with this.

Gates doesn't suffer fools and doesn't hesitate to fire them either.

What needs to be done now is to ensure both companies know that those responsible for that FUBAR will leave the service as soon as all papers are processed. And that there will be more than one officer leaving.

I also believe that Gates needs to freeze both proposals so that neither can benefit from illegal knowledge of the other's proposal.

Or he needs to delay the acquisition program and re-engine some KC-135s. We can re-look at new tankers when the economy improves and we have our deficit under control.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I am embarrassed to acknowledge I am retired from the USAF, and the tanker force.

Never be embarrassed of your service. But it's OK to get pissed. The Tailhook situation really pissed me off, but I'm still glad I served and still proud of the Navy.

Like you, I saw too many outstanding people in the service to let a few really stupid people tarnish my opinion of our services.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3858 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 12730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have to applaud the two competitors if in fact they did not copy the data before alerting the airforce ... it shows they don't want another round.... and would like the saga to end regardless of who wins...

TopBoom, what upgrades and structural enhancements/life extensions do the KC135's need to be able to deliver a good product with a 25-30 year life?


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1976 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 12656 times:

Apparently you guys haven't been around too much recently...all the E models are GONE. The ENTIRE 135 fleet is now R models.

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 12617 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 8):
Apparently you guys haven't been around too much recently...all the E models are GONE. The ENTIRE 135 fleet is now R models.

The USAF is apparently going to take a handful of KC-135R's out of service and have them converted into RC-135's for the UK RAF, apparently some of them have enough lifespan left to justify the mods.

I too am embarrassed for the USAF, I grew up with some good friends whose fathers and even themselves made for a good career out of the USAF, and they all say the same thing today: today's AF is a far cry from that of even the 1980's. It seems as technology has increased, leadership and accountability have decreased.

The USAF should have had the award ready to go the day after the mid-term elections, and now this and the next thing we know we're talking about early 2011 now? One words sums this up: egregious. What a Charlie Fox this has become.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 12479 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
I too am embarrassed for the USAF,

In all fairness, this nut roll is courtesy of the acquisition branch, most of whom are career civil service. As we've seen, unless you do something incredibly stupid--and get caught--as Darleen did, there is very little accountability; they can get a pass for incompetence.

Sadly, this reflects on those in uniform.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12217 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
TopBoom, what upgrades and structural enhancements/life extensions do the KC135's need to be able to deliver a good product with a 25-30 year life?

In addition to the engines, the upgrades need to be engine struts, landing gear (for the increase in gross weight), PACER CRAIG, APU, hydraulic and electrical systems, brakes, removal of the thrust reversers (unless the rengining program is attached to the E-8C reengining with JT-8D-219s), cargo flooring (some aircraft), air refueling receptical (some aircraft), rudder and flight controls, etc.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 8):
Apparently you guys haven't been around too much recently...all the E models are GONE. The ENTIRE 135 fleet is now R models.

No, the entire active fleet is the KC-135R/T. There are RC, WC, and C-135s still flying with the TF-33 engines. The OC-135s are in "flyable storage", as are many EC-135s. There are about 108 KC-135Es in "flyable storage" at DM that can be reactivated, and another 6, or so "gate guards", such as the one at DOV that can be reactivated. There are another 25-30 KC-135As that can also be upgraded because they are in "flyable storage", too.

There has not been any C-135 versions that have been torn down to evaluate the remaining life cycles of the fleet (like a C-5 was a few years back), except the one 1962 model KC-135A torn down by Boeing in 1964 and 1965. This can be done to any KC-135A/E that are not flyable, but stored at DM (about 25 aircraft).


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3858 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
In addition to the engines, the upgrades need to be engine struts, landing gear (for the increase in gross weight), PACER CRAIG, APU, hydraulic and electrical systems, brakes, removal of the thrust reversers (unless the rengining program is attached to the E-8C reengining with JT-8D-219s), cargo flooring (some aircraft), air refueling receptical (some aircraft), rudder and flight controls, etc.

thanks, it's that "etc." that is always the high cost center....      


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7644 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11971 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I'll bet that SecDef Bob Gates is not pleased with this.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
Gates doesn't suffer fools and doesn't hesitate to fire them either.

Other than those who were criminally prosecuted in the initial tanker lease deal, remind us how Sec. Gates has handled the subsequent foul ups with this bid, I'm not saying in general he does not suffer fools, but for this tanker bid he is just as bad, did he not remove the process from the Air Force only to hand the reins back, did he retire any higher ranking officers after the last two fiasco's, did he fire anyone, if he had allowed the last minute bid we would have one uncompromised bid, but we digress.

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
I have to applaud the two competitors if in fact they did not copy the data before alerting the airforce ... it shows they don't want another round.... and would like the saga to end regardless of who wins...

I don't really believe that either side did not copy the data for "later" review, unless they were on copy proof cd's which the Air Force may not know ho wto use.

A question going forward, unless all new staff are bought in on the deal, how can anyone vouch for the professionalism of the Air Force in evaluation the bids and reaching a fair outcome, do we really believe that some clerk simplied copied the correct cd's and shipped them top the wrong company with no oversight whatsoever of the sensitivity of the data.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11836 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems both Boeing and EADS have more integrity here than the USAF. Both OEMs notified the USAF of the "clerical error".

I wonder if they really returned the info before burning copies of the CD's for themselves.



What the...?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11837 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):

I wonder if they really returned the info before burning copies of the CD's for themselves.

whats in your head isn't evidence of a crime. Whats on your desk or in your computer is.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11801 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I am embarrassed to acknowledge I am retired from the USAF, and the tanker force.

look on the bright side of things - we can have another vicious fight like our last one on probe-drogue vs boom and you can have another highly unproductive (but fun) fight with Zeke on A vs B ....cheer up.......

i Have to admit - not being American - and having already decided on our tanker delivery and EIS close to completion - i'm getting a great deal of pleasure watching all this ......... sorry .............. but i'm having a hard time keeping a straight face reading about this.

but don't worry - i'm sure we'll screw up soon - and you can have a laugh at our expense.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):

I don't really believe that either side did not copy the data for "later" review, unless they were on copy proof cd's which the Air Force may not know ho wto use.

Neither do I - they may have print screened the whole thing OR taken notes OR used a seperate digital camera to capture every frame and analyse it on a computer somewhere outside US investigative jurisdiction. It would be irresponsible to Boeing and Airbus shareholders not to do so. Sure they couldn't sack and employee if he/she refused to do it.... but that employee would know that his/her promotion prospects and future at the company are basically at an end.

It cant be proven - but we all know that it happens.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
did he retire any higher ranking officers after the last two fiasco's, did he fire anyone,

Nope - 1st round was outright corruption - second round was not sticking to RFP guidelines - the problem is when you "interpret something" it becomes difficult to prove incompetence in a court of law. This however i think can come under incompetence or a breach of the official secrets act.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 15):
Whats on your desk or in your computer is.

hence the digital camera frame by frame capture.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12877 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 16):
It would be irresponsible to Boeing and Airbus shareholders not to do so.

That really depends on the respective company's policies.   

The US company I work for has a Code of Ethics which we have to sign each year. Our code specifically forbids us from using proprietary information from our competitors that we might find or have passed to us. We're only allowed to use information that's in the public domain. We consider this a small price to pay for being an honest and ethical company (and yes, we still manage to make a handsome profit!)



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
I wonder if they really returned the info before burning copies of the CD's for themselves.

This is certainly possible. All parties admit that the information was compromised. If the USAF were to say "no harm done", that would be difficult to prove. It is a safe bet that there are employees in both companies that now have 100% certainty of the other's bottom line price. At this point, it is hard to see how the USAF can go out and solicit a "best and final offer".

This blunder may have irreparably tainted this round of competition.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems both Boeing and EADS have more integrity here than the USAF. Both OEMs notified the USAF of the "clerical error".

I wonder if they really returned the info before burning copies of the CD's for themselves.

I don't think either Boeing or EADS have returned those CDs to the USAF. At least the story has not indicated that. But the story does indicate the USAF didn't even know they had screwed up until the contracting office got the calls from both OEMs. Whether or not they copied the CDs is another issue.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11634 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 18):
This blunder may have irreparably tainted this round of competition.

Seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/business/21tanker.html?src=busln

Quote:
Officials said both companies, Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, promptly returned the information, and the Air Force plans to continue the bidding.

But industry consultants said the mistake could provide the loser with grounds to protest the contract, delaying a decade-long push to replace refueling planes from the Eisenhower era.

“This seals the deal that this contract award will not be the last word,” said Richard L. Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11554 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 16):
Nope - 1st round was outright corruption

The 1st round had a couple of corrupt folks playing games, but the deal was real and could have been completed. It if had then the USAF would have been flying some of the new tankers today via a lease. The ironic thing is that it would probably be better for the deficit for us to re-look at leasing the tankers on this round.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 16):
second round was not sticking to RFP guidelines

And the second round was McCain sticking his nose in yet again - with a lot of friends associated with the Airbus side.

Queer that McCain has done more than anyone else in keeping the USAF from having tankers. Is he pissed at them or what?

At least he's no longer the political powerhouse he once was.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 16):
This however i think can come under incompetence

So true. Maybe we should let the Navy handle the rest of this RFP. Get things cleaned up a bit.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 18):
At this point, it is hard to see how the USAF can go out and solicit a "best and final offer".

Because the USAF screwed this up I believe that the USAF should simply take the current proposals and go with them. That would mean that the current offer from both is their best & final. That is how it should have been in the first place.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3858 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think both companies are so fed up with this endless bidding/rebidding and the related expenses, that they probably ensured that no data was retained. They want this over with as much as the rest of us. they also realize that if any of that data was utilized, they're in for another 24 month rebidding exercise.

On one hand I agree with Top Boom, that upgrading the existing KC-135s is prudent, on the other given how badly the government screws up the bidding process, would we get to the end product any faster or cheaper? I can just see EADS winning the KC-135 rebuild contract with a Russian partner...      


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11508 times:

Is Sean O'Keefe setting the state for a protest here?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ill-eads-north-america-protes.html

Quote:
EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe, who today made his first KC-X-related appearance since surviving a plane crash nearly four months ago, did not rule out the possibility of filing a protest over an apparent mistake earlier this month by the US Air Force that sent proprietary data to the wrong bidders.

Recall USAF could have already had this nonsense behind them, but they choose to extend the deadline last May and let EADS back in.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11506 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 16):
This however i think can come under incompetence

So true. Maybe we should let the Navy handle the rest of this RFP. Get things cleaned up a bit.

The USN has its problems, too, with the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class DDGs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 18):
At this point, it is hard to see how the USAF can go out and solicit a "best and final offer".

Because the USAF screwed this up I believe that the USAF should simply take the current proposals and go with them. That would mean that the current offer from both is their best & final.

I doubt that will work now because the USAF gave each OEM the other's proprititory information about the bids and questions, including pricing, submitted on and after 9 July 2010. Whoever the high bidder is, assuming their proposal also meets all 372 requirements, can still file a protest with the GAO. The USAF has said they will, at some future point, will allow each OEM to adjust their "final" offer. That leaves each OEM the ability to say "we were going to adjust our final offer price lower than what our opponents final bid price would have been".

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 23):
Recall USAF could have already had this nonsense behind them, but they choose to extend the deadline last May and let EADS back in.


That was Bob Gates decision, not the USAF's decision. Gates wanted, more than anything, two or more companies bidding on the new tanker, so he could say the compitition was "fair".


25 Lumberton : Not only that but they have lost control of the LCS acquisition to the point where they are now advocating buying BOTH candidates, and Ashton Carter
26 scbriml : And what do you think Boeing will do if they lose again?
27 Lumberton : I hope that's a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious. Bottom line: USAF had a tanker. DOD opened the door to EADS. Endless war in the offing.
28 Post contains links Lumberton : More on Sean O'Keefe's "vagueness". Happy now, Gates? http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/22/no-kc-x-protest-for-now/
29 AirRyan : The civilian corps of the Air Force/DoD are every bit as much part of the Air Force are the uniformed members. Perhaps from the perspective that of B
30 Shmertspionem : well then you should see how these two companies do business in India - i suppose their Indian branches operate in some US-EU legal lacunae. I wouldn
31 JoeCanuck : The whole KC-X debacle has been good for laughs...and little else. I guess it has also been good for lawyers and PAC's as well. No military buys forei
32 TPAJAY : Wow!!!, actually I can't wait till the HBO movie comes out about this whole process. You know the type of movie they did about the Bradley fighting ve
33 Post contains links Lumberton : More on O'Keefe's remarks the other day. Not only is he stating the bleeding obvious, but his comments leave little doubt in my mind that the USAF jus
34 KC135TopBoom : I thought the CDs contained each OEMs pricing information? If each looked at the other's pricing, that alone should put an end to this BS. I am gettin
35 Post contains links Lumberton : Gen Schwartz is now saying that pricing data wasn't disclosed. Two officials have been removed and "will be held accountable". (I wonder if one is a G
36 XT6Wagon : They sure weren't a general. Those get retired to very well paid jobs by people they cooked the books for when they still were employed as a general.
37 Lumberton : Regardless of grade level, if they are civil service employees they won't be "fired" in the sense most people understand it. Reuters reports that thes
38 OyKIE : It must be frustrating to be involved in this mix up. According to Flightglobal, the KC-X contest will not be finalized before january 2011. Would buy
39 BoeEngr : I think the only thing that can really end this saga is running a clean competition. One that can stand up to any GAO protests. Unfortunately, with t
40 Post contains links kanban : The press are now saying that the two were fired, no pricing data was included in fact only one page of mission parameters was divulged... http://fina
41 DiamondFlyer : No, that would just complicate matters more, and end up costing the taxpayer even more money. Probably the only sensible thing at this point is to ju
42 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : To inject some levity into this "frustrating" saga, perhaps the process could have been chugging along its merry way had they accepted U.S. Aerospace
43 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Gen. Swartz has to show he is taking some action. But he took the wrong action by removing the two clerks, and not the program chief. No, th
44 Post contains links and images kanban : per http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/bu...24tanker.html?partner=yahoofinance now they say something different.... now reassigned.... are these dolts
45 AirRyan : No need to go that far. In what is now L-3 Greenville, Texas (formerly LTV and prior to that, TEMCO) has been happily modifying Boeing military aircr
46 Post contains images OyKIE : But GAO would not have been engaged, if Boeing had not complained. If they buy half and half, no one would be complaining... But it costs even more t
47 francoflier : The other option would be for the USAF to retract the whole thing and openly say they'll just go and buy from Boeing as it is the national manufacture
48 Post contains images Lumberton : I've been advocating the same since I joined this board in 2005. To borrow someone else's phrase: war without end. It is remarkably self-defeating to
49 KC135TopBoom : Boeing had a right to protest the 2008 award, and as it turned out, uncovered the rules the USAF broke back then. Actually the KC-135 is not a B-707,
50 JoeCanuck : It is probably best at this point to just pretend the whole thing was a bad, bad dream, the cash was lost in Vegas and hope everybody involved takes
51 Post contains images Ken777 : I thought they changed the name to the Wussy Class. I did my last WestPac cruise in '69 on a DDG and think they are great designs, or were. The least
52 KC135TopBoom : That is very possible. Unfortunately, you are correct, my friend. Good question. If they had printed out the letters (in they were indeed just a page
53 Lumberton : I fully agree. Gen Schwartz's denials notwithstanding, judging from the media reports there was far more to this than just a letter. This may be the
54 Ken777 : I thought they changed the name to the Wussy Class. The least deal was to get some planes in production fast in order to protect the industry employm
55 par13del : Is that realistic, practical or even historical, there are a number of military equipment which were used even in wartime that were not the best in t
56 KC135TopBoom : I would loved to have been a fly on the wall during that meeting. The USAF has been subjective during the entire "we want a new tanker" soap oprea, f
57 Lumberton : What I still find puzzling is how a former, and now retired, commander of AMC, who was heavily involved in the tanker RFP the last go around, was cle
58 par13del : Might explain why more C-17's are not required but larger tanker a/c which can carry more cargo are the ideal a/c. Hhhhhhmmmmmmmm, inquiring minds wo
59 Post contains images OyKIE : I am not questioning Boeing's right to protest. My point was that there is always possible to stall a government spending. And a hot potato like the
60 Lumberton : I can assure you that it has not been relaxed, which makes that particular general's hiring all the more puzzling. (Remember "More, More, More?)[Edit
61 kanban : the way this is going, I'll go back to my position a year ago... only 1/2 the tankers will be authorized by congress, a portion of the KC-135's will g
62 KC135TopBoom : The way it 'suppose' to work is you can work for that contractor, but not on that contract for a year. Since Lichte is now a member of the EADS-NA bo
63 par13del : It is unfortunate that the American's seem to be the only one's which such a dilema, especially when their financial situation is not condusive to su
64 KC135TopBoom : With the financial condition of the US Government, as a whole, if the KC-X contract is awarded, I see only about 48 to 69 airplanes actually being bui
65 Post contains links BoeEngr : No, the GAO would not have been engaged if the Air Force had completed a fair competition. Though I know many on here think Boeing should have just l
66 Zeke : That statement is not factually correct. The USAF did not release any information about either bid to their competitors. What they inadvertently rele
67 Lumberton : Judging by the spokesmen's comments from both companies, I am reasonably certain there will be a protest--regardless of which aircraft the USAF select
68 KC135TopBoom : The latest update, as I understand it, after the USAF looked at what each OEM looked at, or did not look at, the USAF determined someone at EADS-NA "i
69 flyglobal : This sounds strange: Wasn't it rather like this what happened? I at Boeing/ EDAS receive a disk supposedly having information about the evaluation of
70 Bennett123 : When does Congress pack up for Christmas. This is.nt going to get sorted in 2010.
71 Zeke : They didn’t actually any receive information back from the USAF that was supplied to the USAF, what they received was an input file on how the USAF
72 cpd : I think it is simply not possible to award the tanker to either Antonov, Boeing or EADS. It has to be built by some other group that is separate from
73 Shmertspionem : Panic??? maybe they didn't like what they "didn't see". I think they're just covering bases and laying the grounds for a protest should they lose - a
74 Post contains links BoeEngr : True, but since NG didn't file a complaint, the GAO didn't look into their side. You're probably right that there are instances where NG was not trea
75 par13del : I believe that is the whole point of the data being resent to both OEM's, they show the Air Forces evaluation of the technical merits and invite adju
76 KC135TopBoom : I believe each OEM will have one more chance to adjust pricing and/or airplane data before a selection is made. That request from the USAF should come
77 Post contains links Lumberton : Actually, it may be far more that that. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ptions-open-as-kc-x-questions.html If this report is accurate, "propos
78 wvsuperhornet : What a shock, I am superised wkikileaks hasnt reported on this yet...lol
79 KC135TopBoom : Wikileaks has bigger problems than worrying about the KC-X program. Back on topic. The USAF has dug themselves into a hole they may not be able to ge
80 bikerthai : Well, typically this is how it would happen: All communication from suppliers/customer are routed though an intermediary within Boeing. Typically it
81 Zeke : The GAO has no process for a winner of a contract to file a complaint. I don’t, how can come up with a different conclusion from "no proprietary da
82 Lumberton : Enlighten us how you know that, please. Boeing seems to think it may have been compromised. Read the quote from Trimble's article. Oh, you mean the A
83 kanban : What I find intriguing is that we have a clear process defined by Boeing ( thanks to Bikerthai) on how secured information is handled that parallels m
84 bikerthai : There should be no reason to think EADS procedures would be any different. It may have come down to an extra sharp Contract person to have noticed th
85 kanban : I was actually hoping that someone from that side would chime in and explain their processes.... I've noticed that there are a lot more Boeing proces
86 KC135TopBoom : The data could only be opened on USAF owned computers, loaned to each OEM. These computers are cleared to handle classified data. These computers are
87 Shmertspionem : if you read what zeke said - proposal information was not what was leaked - but the AF's own IFARA assessment that was leaked. Proposal would include
88 Zeke : Did they ever say that ? Very convenient to be selective on what you do and don’t believe the USAF says. This would be the same USAF that inspected
89 Post contains images Lumberton : And if you read what I said, you would see that I asked him how he knows that for sure. Frankly, only the USAF and Boeing know that with any certaint
90 Post contains images Shmertspionem : And if you read what he said you'd see the document was IFARA related If it was the IFARA then it could not be proprietary .... see the IFARA workshe
91 KC135TopBoom : Well, in the O'Keefe news conference interview last week, He was the first to raise the question of a GAO protest. Because he/EADS did this, before mo
92 Post contains links flood : Seattle Times reporting: Analyst: Boeing's hopes fading for tanker win Following an inadvertent peek at Defense Department data, Boeing executives bel
93 Zeke : The USAF has now officially issued with the data to the vendors. They cannot do anything with it, the vendors cannot change their proposals at this p
94 AirRyan : Hopefully the writing is on the wall for Boeing and they tactfully bow out once the USAF re-awards the bid to EADS. A330's just killed B767's in the
95 par13del : Except this is not a commercial product being purchased by an airline for profit, is possibly the largest military purchase by the US government and
96 Shmertspionem : No they wont - they still have grounds (IMO valid) to appeal based on the extended submission deadline given to solicit the Airbus proposal. No it me
97 par13del : As far as I am aware, there is no WTO rule / regulation that says that the government of any country has to put out to bid with international comapni
98 XT6Wagon : Well its NG more than Airbus, but both share the burden. Thier bid failed to meet MULTIPLE manditory requirements, one of which they admited to the G
99 Shmertspionem : is NG involved this time???? i thought they had enough the last time and left EADS to fend for themselves? That was last time - but this time round w
100 Post contains images par13del : It's a military contract, it never created a problem for Europe in not requesting US bids for the Tornado replacement, their A400M or other military
101 bikerthai : It's come to a point where I can almost say I don't care if Boeing wins the Tanker. Let Airbus win and hope that the Air Forced made the correct deci
102 Venus6971 : My take on reading the tea leaves. EADS will get the contract but for only about 70 acft before congress kills the amount of the overall buy, Alabama
103 Post contains images par13del : Hopefully, after the losses on the current 787 and not getting the funds from the tanker deal, they will be able to source funding to actually produc
104 KC135TopBoom : Correct, each country can decide to do its military business within its own boarders. So, should the US file a WTO complaint on not being allowed to
105 scbriml : If this is true: Then this is a nonsense, no?
106 Shmertspionem : 1) Those aircraft (A-400 and Typhoon) were finalised in the late 80's (85 and 82 respectively) before the Uruguay and Doha rounds finalised what we k
107 Post contains images par13del : Interesting analysis, but topic for a different thread.
108 Post contains images bikerthai : I remember the time (before the MD merger) that the Boeing name was linked to quality products with top notch customer relation and support. GAO prot
109 par13del : That may be as a result of "swallowing" up companies versus just letting them die or other's take them over with all the associated problems, in hind
110 KC135TopBoom : It does when you use the whole quote I was reponding to. I was being sarcastic there. There is no ability for the US to file a WTO complaint against
111 Post contains links Shmertspionem : here's an explanation of the Boeing POV on bias. Would love to hear from A supporters on rebutting the main points it makes http://defpro.com/news/det
112 keesje : Boeing totally ignores the WTO verdicts on subsidies they receive(d) The KC45 can move more further. Boeing chooses to ignore this or say it is unnec
113 KC135TopBoom : 1. I agree, Boeing has a case and this is a strong argument. 2. I'm not sure, Airbus has not been penialized by anyone, yet. 3., 4., 5., 6., and 7. I
114 zeke : Boeing did not submit their bid at the original time, they actually submitted their bid a day after the EADS bid. Therefore Boeing actually used the
115 Shmertspionem : I think the allegation here is that they used one set of bases for Airbus but a totally different set for Boeing.... any truth to that? a ha - thanks
116 zeke : No, MILCON is at a defined set of bases for all vendors. They are Altus (8 A/C), Grand Forks (12 A/C), Fairchild (36 A/C), MacDill (24 A/C), Seymour-
117 Shmertspionem : so what's the basis of the Boeing spin claiming that " they are being denied simulation access to air bases that the 330 is getting"? Is this because
118 scbriml : Unless I missed something, didn't Boeing also get extra time? If they'd submitted their bid to the original deadline, maybe they'd have a case. Since
119 Post contains images scbriml : Then you need to use one of these doohickies: Otherwise, it's difficult for us to know when you're being serious!
120 par13del : The US is going to take itself to the WTO, I think I read that wrong. The extension of importance is the one granted when NG decided to pull out of t
121 zeke : Not sure, simulation might refer to the the IFARA, the operational analysis. Should not be, the FURA (fuel burn comparison) is based upon hypothetica
122 KC135TopBoom : Actually, according to Boeing, they were ready to submit their bids in early May 2010, the original due date for the bids. But NG dropped out in late
123 scbriml : But they didn't. EADS asked for 90 days. Not completely. 60 days is some way short of 90. So Boeing did use the extra time, then submitted their bid
124 KC135TopBoom : Why should they have submitted their bid 2 months early? By then they knew they had a different competitor in EADS bidding alone, and EADS could subm
125 Shmertspionem : to create grounds for deadline extension appeal later on. Boeing should make somebody in the strategy department pay for this. Since after KCX2 when
126 astuteman : Ergo they used the extension time to good, and necessary effect, ergo there is no claim to be made. You would have thought so. By using the time as d
127 Post contains links and images scbriml : Several reasons, not least of all because they said they would! http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0112456820100401 Perhaps their bid wasn't as "full
128 par13del : Let's be reasonable here, once the deadline was extended what would be the point? How the Air Force should have screwed them over would have been to
129 KC135TopBoom : Well, I agree we all have opinions on the subject. Since none of us work for the GAO, USAF, Boeing, or EADS, none of us really have any way of knowin
130 zeke : I was thinking about this comment a little more, it actually says a lot more than meets the eyes on the first read. This is clear evidence that Boein
131 par13del : Did the US AirForce not confirm that Boeing HAD NOT accessed the data on the disc, I thought I read where they stated that, there are other for them
132 Post contains links Shmertspionem : I think the difference is one deadline extension was requested "pre-facto" ( I know there's no such word but I'm sure everybody gets it) and Antonov
133 scbriml : I completely agree, but it was Boeing who said they would stick to the original deadline. Boeing had at least three choices: 1) Do as they said they
134 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I agree. The IFARA score for the two airplanes should not be classified information, only information that can be opened only on the USAF owned compu
135 par13del : But they did not, they requested an extension similar to what EADS received and it was denied, they then submitted their bid 5 minutes late and it wa
136 Post contains links scbriml : That's what they said. But, from what I've read, they subsequently sent both sets of data to both bidders in order to mitigate the issue. So, the iss
137 Shmertspionem : i didnt know the Request for Extention on Antonovs part - thanks for that...... but would it have been wise to extend further for a hastily conceived
138 zeke : Every aircraft that has been introduced into the USAF in the past 50 years has been able to do more, more, more than its predecessor. As a result the
139 par13del : They declined the 6 month extension, the vendor accepted that, moved on and submitted their bid 5 minutes late, that is what the discussion is about,
140 par13del : I needed to comment on this, that is the reality they are in but it primarily has to do with the OEM's using military programs as their primary busin
141 zeke : Their planning simulations require around 600 KC-135 equivalents, if they went for KC-767s, I would think the end fleet size would be around 400 airc
142 Shmertspionem : right so slightly off tangent re: the Antonov bid why is it that the An-70 can lift 47 tons of cargo with 4 props - but only 33 tons with 2 big gen-ex
143 keesje : I think it comes down to the critical 1 engine goes 0 just before V1 at MTOW under the worst allowable conditions. Then the An-70 has 3 engines left.
144 KC135TopBoom : I think you wrote that wrong, Keesje. It is actually loosing an engine 1 knot, or more after V1. Before V1 you can abort the TO and still stop within
145 SA7700 : This thread has veered into an off-topic debate, which does not address the essence of the original post. Any posts added after the thread lock will b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
KC-X Tanker Saga Continues posted Fri May 14 2010 19:49:05 by Beta
Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid posted Tue Apr 20 2010 14:57:35 by Yazoo
Russia To Enter US Tanker Bid Battle posted Fri Mar 19 2010 22:10:16 by n49wa
EADS/NA Considers Tanker Bid - Requests Extension posted Fri Mar 19 2010 08:31:48 by tugger
Airbus Tanker Bid Pullout - Implications? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:46:19 by AirbusA6
Northrop Out Of Tanker Bid posted Mon Mar 8 2010 14:41:38 by PlaneAdmirer
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released posted Thu Feb 25 2010 02:03:47 by Zeke
John Murtha's Death Could Hurt NG KC-30 Bid posted Wed Feb 10 2010 11:58:44 by AirRyan
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II posted Sun Nov 1 2009 12:08:45 by Scbriml
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke