• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:13 pm

Since the other thread is approaching 350 posts and the focus of discussion has shifted to the appeal by Boeing, I figured I'd start a new thread that discusses the appeal.

From FI:

Quote:
A separate Northrop business unit helped the USAF develop the evaluation formula, which was likely to allow Northrop's tanker team to spot - and respond - to the changes much sooner,



Quote:
Northrop's larger KC-30 tanker bid suffered under the previous formula for lacking ramp space to complete certain missions. The changes resolved that problem by inventing ramp capacity that does not exist in the real world, arbitrarily giving the Northrop team a boost

[emphasis added]

I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-usaf-decision-to-buy-airbus.html
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

How about adding the next paragraph as well, the delivery date was moved back by 12 weeks as the RAAF asked for some changes, this has been reported on a.net before.

"An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented"."

The US met with Australian officials about Project Air 5402, the KC-30B project...what I am unsure of is if they also talked about the extensive delays with wedgetail.

"Australia is "very happy" with work by Europe's EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) on its new Airbus A330 refueling tankers, and has shared its insights with the U.S. Air Force, which is due to pick a winner soon in its own tanker program, a top Australian military official said on Thursday."

"Australia picked EADS and its A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) over Boeing Co's (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 767 tanker in 2004."

""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."

"Reynolds said Australian officials had briefed U.S. officials "extensively" about their experiences with the EADS tanker program as part of the U.S. Air Force's evaluation of competing bids in its own program."

"EADS will deliver the first of five Australian tankers in early 2009, said Guy Hicks, spokesman for EADS North America.

That date is a few months later than expected due to changes in the tanker, requested by Australia, a source familiar with the program said."

from http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...er=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

No doubt the US also talked to Japan and Italy, no doubt the extensive delays on those programs were mentioned.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

It might have been even more enlightening if you'd have added the very next sentence in the article, which said..

Quote
"An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented".

 scratchchin   Smile

Regards
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:52 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 2):

A nicely set trap on my part!  Wink

Wasn't Boeing's delivery delays to the Italians also related to "customer requested changes" to which so many had scoffed?

By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF. And to that, I note both of you esteemed gentlemen did not, as well, add the REST of the article's quote attributed to the Australian Defense spokesperson:

Quote:
She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

[emphasis added]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:13 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
Wasn't Boeing's delivery delays to the Italians also related to "customer requested changes" to which so many had scoffed?

No that was Japan, they wanted an FAA certified aircraft. Despite that changes, they were still late, paying US$82,000 a day in late fees.

The Italian aircraft were contracted for delivery starting in 2005, now expected to be delivered 3-4 years late. They had flutter issues with the wing pods (which are not on the Japanese tankers).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

Nor were they supposed to yet, the original time frame was Q4 2008. But you do have a few A310MRTTs flying about.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

Of course it carries risk, but as I pointed out in my previous reply

""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."

"Reynolds said Australian officials had briefed U.S. officials "extensively" about their experiences with the EADS tanker program as part of the U.S. Air Force's evaluation of competing bids in its own program."
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:05 am

I've no doubt that the Air Force knew that all hell would break loose when the award was announced and I fully expect them to be prepared to defend all issues. Those mentioned in the opening post from FI are two that will generate a lot of heat and it will be interesting to see how the AF handles these issues. There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

In reality, the entire issue has only been out in the public for a little over a week and, in an intense political year, is only going to grow over the next few months. Judgements based on what is currently public may well need to be revised as new issues come out. Probably won't be as lurid as a sex scandal of a prominent politician, but those tend to end too quickly these days.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:01 am

Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment. The time for Boeing to have said something about the changes in the criteria were while the bids were still out - it's not as if the USAF said "here's the RFP but don't bother asking any questions."

The GAO is going to come up with a scathing conclusion in regards to Boeing's protest and it's only going to make them look all the more foolish, even more so than losing KC-X in the first place and that's saying a lot! Good job, McNerney you whining Ivy League schmuck! Big grin
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:24 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
I've no doubt that the Air Force knew that all hell would break loose when the award was announced and I fully expect them to be prepared to defend all issues.

If the EADS proposal had been just marginally better in performance, I doubt the Air Force would have picked it due to the intense scrutiny choosing a non US supplier for a $40 billion contact is bound to generate. Nortrup/Grumman is definitlely American, and the tanker supposedly will have 58% US content, but still many people will consider it to be a foreign aircraft.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:00 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment.

AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

I still think part of the appeal will have to do with McCain getting the USAF to change its RFP(this being an election year involving McCain just adds to it). (I know, AR, Elvis is still serving the drinks  Smile  drunk  )

Dan in Jupiter
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:28 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 8):
AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

Because if you are familiar with CSAR-X thus far you will know where the USAF has gone out of their way to keep the HH-47 even able to compete - they stretched the requirement for it to be airworthy following shipment in a C-5/C-17 and they completely ignored the long term cost benefits of the maintenance equation that favor the LM bid in the US-101. There is a reason as to why Air Force Chief of Staff General Moseley as well as the majority of the industry experts were surprised by the HH-47 award - the US-101 was the expected winner.

Common sense also tells me that with all the time that has transpired since will only further benefit the US-101 with the combat proven experience of the British Merlins in Iraq - as Jackonicko has pointed out the British who use both a very similar version of the HH-47 as well as the Merlin which is very similar to the US-101 prefer the Merlin over the H-47 for duties most closely associated with the CSAR mission for a variety of numerous reasons.

Let's keep in mind that the H-47 is a design origins go back to the 1950's when not only did engineers not have computer aided design software in which to design these aircraft, they had to use slide rules because calculators were not even quite available yet! The USAF expects to operate these aircraft well into the late 2040's at the least - they don't need to be operating a near century old design towards the end of the CSAR-X's expected service lives.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:44 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment. The time for Boeing to have said something about the changes in the criteria were while the bids were still out - it's not as if the USAF said "here's the RFP but don't bother asking any questions."

The GAO is going to come up with a scathing conclusion in regards to Boeing's protest and it's only going to make them look all the more foolish, even more so than losing KC-X in the first place and that's saying a lot! Good job, McNerney you whining Ivy League schmuck! 

If a Boeing unit were the ones who helped create the evaluation formula for a USAF RFP that ended up favoring Boeing, you would be screaming your head off about a conflict of interest.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:18 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along -



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 8):
AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

AirRyan, I know you won't believe this, but Boeing may very well have a case here. Only the lawyers and politicians will decide if Boeing's case is weak, or not. Whether they win or not, with the USAF, is another question.

But, are you saying the USAF also needs to cancel the C-17 contracts? After all, that makes about as much sence as cancelling the CSAR-X contract, as you suggested.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Because if you are familiar with CSAR-X thus far you will know where the USAF has gone out of their way to keep the HH-47 even able to compete - they stretched the requirement for it to be airworthy following shipment in a C-5/C-17 and they completely ignored the long term cost benefits of the maintenance equation that favor the LM bid in the US-101.

Hmmmm, CSAR-X has gone through 2 GAO investigations, and Boeing still has the contract. I guess the new build HH-47Fs are the correct choice?

The USAF HH-47F is based on the US Army MH-47G. It can carry 28,000lbs of cargo up to 170 knots. The HH-47F/G has a smaller disc area than the HH-71A/B, 2800ft2 for the HH-47(disc loading is 9.5lb/ft2) , and 2992ft2 for the HH-71 (disc loading is 11.01lb/ft2). The HH-71 only carries 12,000lbs of cargo up to (never exceed speed) 167 knots. The HH-47 has a service ceiling of 18,500' vs. the HH-71 service ceiling of only 15,000'.

Which one is more useful in mountainous rescues, or resupplies?

There have been four helicopter compititions recently:
VHM-X, for the USMC, won by the CH-53K
VXX , for the USMC, won by the VH-71A/B
CSAR-X, for the USAF, won by the HH-47F
CVLSP, for the USAF, USMC, USN, USCG, and US Army, has not been awarded, yet.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:31 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
If a Boeing unit were the ones who helped create the evaluation formula for a USAF RFP that ended up favoring Boeing, you would be screaming your head off about a conflict of interest.

But Boeing should have known this as soon as they got the RFP and they had numerous opportunities since then to converse with the USAF and discuss any posible differences they may have had with the formula; i.e. I don't think they had any problems with the formula until they lost the bid.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

For every politican that is speaking out against this bid there are ones that are either for it or at least neutral enough to let the deal stand - Pelosi and the 110th Congress just haven't shown an ability to get much of anything done and thereby I just don't see they possessing the capability of breaking up this deal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
AirRyan, I know you won't believe this, but Boeing may very well have a case here. Only the lawyers and politicians will decide if Boeing's case is weak, or not. Whether they win or not, with the USAF, is another question.

The spin has to stop somewhere for the sake of national defense alone: between the CSAR-X and KC-X the USAF has exposed serious flaws in our defense aquisition and believe it or not, these aircraft desipite the Democrats who want to stand in the way of capitalism will eventually make it to the Wing!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
But, are you saying the USAF also needs to cancel the C-17 contracts? After all, that makes about as much sence as cancelling the CSAR-X contract, as you suggested.

I don't remember saying anything about the C-17, the last I heard was there is a differnce in opinion between the Pentagon and Congress as to how many more C-17's the USAF needs. As for CSAR my only argument with the USAF conducting it is if they were to buy the HH-47 to do it when the USArmy are the ones who have been using those helo's for the last 40+ years - what's next, the USArmy is going to buy F-22's?! As Spock would say, "that's illogical."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Hmmmm, CSAR-X has gone through 2 GAO investigations, and Boeing still has the contract. I guess the new build HH-47Fs are the correct choice?

Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The USAF HH-47F is based on the US Army MH-47G. It can carry 28,000lbs of cargo up to 170 knots. The HH-47F/G has a smaller disc area than the HH-71A/B, 2800ft2 for the HH-47(disc loading is 9.5lb/ft2) , and 2992ft2 for the HH-71 (disc loading is 11.01lb/ft2). The HH-71 only carries 12,000lbs of cargo up to (never exceed speed) 167 knots. The HH-47 has a service ceiling of 18,500' vs. the HH-71 service ceiling of only 15,000'.

Despite the contrary the entire world is not necessarily in a mountainous environment at high altitude and besides, I'll take the bird with three engines over one with just two for high altitude ops any day of the week. If I'm looking for a horse to ride into harms way I'd want the one that offers me the range and speed I require but does so with the least amount of observability and that's the US-101 hands down.

I remember in Kosovo where you could hear a Chinook from around a mountain slinging a load long before you ever even saw the aircraft, that's not what I want coming to "rescue" me should happen to ever need a dustoff behind enemy lines. The only thing the HH-47 has going for it is that it's ready now which isn't too terribly hard to imagine since the USArmy has been using for the past 40+ years - but if I'm the USAF looking for a bird to ride for the next 30+ years, would I want the current generation of technology in the US-101 or one that's already got 40+ years of "experience" under it's belt?

Frankly, I think the argument as to which one can perform the job better than the other is a rather feckless endeavor and so the argument to me should come down to which aircraft can be operated more efficiently and effectively over the next 30+ years that the aircraft are expected to be able to operate in - the US-101 wins hands down in that respect.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:53 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

When I was in Keflavik the PennANG brought 2 Ch-47's for a Viking Thunder via a C-5 with us AWACS guys helping them it took over 12 hours to get the swash plates, gearing and the rotors hung with a big crew doing the work to be airborne.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
art
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:00 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

I have seen nothing to suggest that it should have been delivered by now.

From the FI link you gave:

"A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule. She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented".

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

As one would expect. You only told the bit of the story that suited your purposes, it seems to me.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."

 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:22 pm

Quoting Art (Reply 14):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

I have seen nothing to suggest that it should have been delivered by now.

My comment was not intended to suggest that the airframe was already late. If my other post came across that way then my sincere apologies to you and to Zeke. My comment was intended to imply that between now and when it is finally delivered (or scheduled to be delivered) a lot can go wrong. So it would be pointless to argue, as many have, that the Airbus tanker is so much less riskier than the Boeing tanker because the Boeing tanker has encountered delays to other customers whereas the Airbus tanker hasn't (yet). As we have seen, it is delayed and the delay could become lengthier in the next year.

[Edited 2008-03-15 15:28:24]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:34 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 13):
When I was in Keflavik the PennANG brought 2 Ch-47's for a Viking Thunder via a C-5 with us AWACS guys helping them it took over 12 hours to get the swash plates, gearing and the rotors hung with a big crew doing the work to be airborne.

Of course it took 12 hrs...they were Guard...they can only work one hour in seven! LOL

Seriously, during source selection...the USAF sent teams to observe each vendor's ability to tear down and build up their aircraft in the prescribed time and surprising at it seems, Boeing was able to meet the 3 hrs requirement. This issue is reported to have been a question in the protest phase and dismissed by GAO.

Of course it is important to note the aircraft BA offers for the CSAR-X is NOT the same old "slick" acft that typical army line units fly, but an adaptation of the newest SOF variant...the MH-47G, which has many improvements designed to reduce tear down/build up time such as quick disconnects for oil/hyd systems, QD fasteners and a reduction in the total numbers of fasteners (nuts, bolts, widgets etc) found on previous models.
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:35 am

One problem with Boeing appealing about the decision is that, when NG threatened to withdraw unless changes were made, Boeing- so I am led to believe - didn't object.

Why? Because they don't have an aircraft the size of the A330. The 767 is more A310 and the 777 is bigger.

Could this be a point the USAF/GAO raise?
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3691
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:54 am

The article states 2 reasons for the Boeing appeal.

The first being that the formula to evaluate mission performance was changed at the last minute 'with the help of Northrop Grumman', and the second is that the USAF failed to consider Boeing's experience in making commercial airliners.

"Secondly, Boeing claims that the USAF refused to give proper credit to the company's experience making commercial airliners.

The USAF's method for evaluating programme risk discounted Boeing's experience based on commercial airliner programmes, such as the 777-200LR and the 737-900ER, McGraw says.
"

I don't get that one...

Does it mean that Airbus/EADS is utterly inept at developing and building succesful airliners? Or was it a shot at NG?
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
AirNZ
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:03 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:57 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information
Flown:F27/TU134/Viscount/Trident/BAC111/727/737/747/757/767/777/300/310/320/321/330/340/DC9/DC10/Dash8/Shorts330/BAe146
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:55 pm



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information

Let's put things straight here. the 2002 KC-767 'lease deal' is not, and never was the KC-X program. That program was throwen together as a bone to Boeing after 9/11 sales losses. Boeing was involved in thta deal, and they paid heavierly for that.

People went to jail over that one.

Boeing stayed above boards and stayed public in the KC-X program.

Apparently, the USAF did not learn anything from the 2002 tanker debacal, as they turned around and did the same thing in KC-X, but this time with NG.

These two screw ups are not related.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:07 pm



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 18):
I don't get that one...

Does it mean that Airbus/EADS is utterly inept at developing and building succesful airliners? Or was it a shot at NG?

Well EADS did have the A380.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
But Boeing should have known this as soon as they got the RFP and they had numerous opportunities since then to converse with the USAF and discuss any posible differences they may have had with the formula; i.e. I don't think they had any problems with the formula until they lost the bid.

Perhaps it wasn't apparent until late in the game. After all, Boeing claims they were told that greater offload than the 767 provides wouldn't improve their bid.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information

Are you claiming that is justification for an NG subsidiary's participation in the criteria development process. One would have thought the USAF would have learned a lesson.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:52 pm

I keep reading these posts and can't tell what 90% of them have to do with the protest. Boeing has made a very simple basic claim that after they offered the 767 platform to meet the original RFP requirement for 135 replacements the Airforce decided they liked the idea of larger, more capable plane. Boeing says that if the AF would have said what they wanted in the first place, they could have offered the 777.
Maybe they lost the deal in part for being arrogant and rude and stupid in their dealings with the government, but acquiring new tankers isn't supposed to be based on warm and fuzzy feelings. It's supposed to be based on getting the best deal for the money. And the best deal isn't just the best hardware for the price, but the deal that benefits the US taxpayer. It's not bogus to include jobs and the benefits of having a domestic corporation controlling the production of that important a program, and it's not bogus to claim that the AF should have known what they wanted before they asked for proposals.
Anon
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:01 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
As for CSAR my only argument with the USAF conducting it is if they were to buy the HH-47 to do it when the USArmy are the ones who have been using those helo's for the last 40+ years - what's next, the USArmy is going to buy F-22's?! As Spock would say, "that's illogical."

Illogical?

The USAF flies more than 100 H-60's, and the Navy flies several hundred H-60's...but wait, the US Army flies more than a thousand H-60's so according to your "logic"...the USAF/USN shouldn't be flying these "army" acft huh?

What of HMMWV's, body armor and weapons that all branches share with the US Army? Do you really think it's a logical argument to say it's a bad thing for the tax payer when the govt reduces cost of ownership by exploiting economies of scale for ONE product (H-47), and ignore other examples of this sound operational and financial discipline used for many other products shared by all services?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

This is correct, the USAF has not yet issued the CSAR-X contract...however, the IG investigation is to focus on how the CSAR-X requirements were established, and what changes were made during development of these requirements. The USAF is currently conducting the source selection effort for RFP # 5 and the decision is independent of the IG investigation and should be known this summer.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Despite the contrary the entire world is not necessarily in a mountainous environment at high altitude and besides, I'll take the bird with three engines over one with just two for high altitude ops any day of the week. If I'm looking for a horse to ride into harms way I'd want the one that offers me the range and speed I require but does so with the least amount of observability and that's the US-101 hands down.

Ryan, you've made the claim of the all powerful 3 engined EH-101 before on another thread. Fact is there are high altitude areas on the planet and the CSAR forces want to be able to operate safely and effectively at these high and often hot locations. The USAF has already lost one HH-60 helicopter with fatalities operating in Afghanistan when it got in trouble at high altitude, and we all saw the dramatic loss of another USAF HH-60 rolling down the side of Mtn Hood during a rescue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfJDq_I1HA

The combined power of the EH-101 engines generate a total of 5760 SHP...the two H-47G engines generate 9800 SHP. The EH-101 is NOT another H-53 "Echo" who's engines generate more then 13000SHP. The 101 is a fine machine but it was designed to operate in low and cool European environments, for it's European customers...it was not designed to serve in high/hot environments and does not have anywhere near the lift and horsepower of the 53 Echo or the 47 Golf.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Frankly, I think the argument as to which one can perform the job better than the other is a rather feckless endeavor and so the argument to me should come down to which aircraft can be operated more efficiently and effectively over the next 30+ years that the aircraft are expected to be able to operate in - the US-101 wins hands down in that respect.

Make no mistake...the KC-X and CSAR-X source selection aren't jobs program dreamed up by politicians, and those with intellectual integrity do not preach the love for one specific vendor over another with no supporting evidence of claims of such superiority. The work of supporting the troops and keeping them alive is deadly serious and sadly, has been paid for in blood time and time again when machines have been pressed into service in situations they were not designed for.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:09 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
Perhaps it wasn't apparent until late in the game.

Again I'm reminded of college where I when I were the student it was my responsibility to make sure I had the material and understood it and not necessarily the other way around.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
After all, Boeing claims they were told that greater offload than the 767 provides wouldn't improve their bid.

That isn't exactly how the USAF worded it...

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
Boeing says that if the AF would have said what they wanted in the first place, they could have offered the 777.

Boeing couldn't have offered the 777 because even if it would have met the RFP it would not have been competitive on terms of price and risk.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
And the best deal isn't just the best hardware for the price, but the deal that benefits the US taxpayer. It's not bogus to include jobs and the benefits of having a domestic corporation controlling the production of that important a program, and it's not bogus to claim that the AF should have known what they wanted before they asked for proposals.

But that is not capitalism nor how it works - by law the USAF was strictly prohibited from even taking such socioeconomic factors as jobs and such into account when deciding upon a winner.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:31 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
Boeing couldn't have offered the 777 because even if it would have met the RFP it would not have been competitive on terms of price and risk.

Even USAF said proce was not a consideration in the KC-45 program. If it was, they could not choise an airplane that costs $40M more than the competitor. Since a KC-777 would have been based off an airframe with a frozen design, the B-777-200LRF, it would have a lower risk than the airplane selected, tha A-330-200F, which does not have a frozen design.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
But that is not capitalism nor how it works - by law the USAF was strictly prohibited from even taking such socioeconomic factors as jobs and such into account when deciding upon a winner.

Go back and look again. USAF is required to look at economic factors that generate or keep in place US jobs. here the Boeing proposition would have kept in place some 29,000 US jobs, andf generated another 15,000 jobs. The NG/EADS would create 25,000 new jobs. What is not addessed is can those original 29,000 Boeing related jobs (not all work for Boeing) keep working?

Had the KC-767AT been selected, several hundred at NG and EADS-US would have been laid off. But, now, how many will be laid off because the A-330MRTT was selected?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:05 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Even USAF said proce was not a consideration in the KC-45 program. If it was, they could not choise an airplane that costs $40M more than the competitor. Since a KC-777 would have been based off an airframe with a frozen design, the B-777-200LRF, it would have a lower risk than the airplane selected, tha A-330-200F, which does not have a frozen design.

I thought that a B777-LRF design would be impossible for this bid because GE was part of the NG-EADS-GE bid. And since they have the exclusive rights for putting engines on any 777-300ER, 777-200LR and 777-F, a B777-tanker using that platform would never see the light of day. That leaves Boeing (in this highly hypothetical case that they could rebid with a B777 type of tanker aircraft) with the basic (but older designs of the B777-200/300) to start their development for converting it into a tanker aircraft. Then they most likely would mount that plane with P&W engines to keep it more american made than the KC-30/45. (very sad to see P&W losing so much market share overall to GE and RR, I have always liked them very much).

Can anyone confirm if I am right on this aspect or that the newer B777 types with the GE-115 engines as a basis for a tanker could actually be offered to the USAF. Again, I know this is a pure speculative situation since the GAO is not going to rule on the USAF verdict. And even if they rule in favor of Boeing (IMHO very unlikely and also unwanted and not deserved) it is still very, very doubtfull (or even highly unlikely) that it could match the KC-30's balanced field take-off performance.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:25 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 23):
The USAF flies more than 100 H-60's, and the Navy flies several hundred H-60's...but wait, the US Army flies more than a thousand H-60's so according to your "logic"...the USAF/USN shouldn't be flying these "army" acft huh?

What of HMMWV's, body armor and weapons that all branches share with the US Army? Do you really think it's a logical argument to say it's a bad thing for the tax payer when the govt reduces cost of ownership by exploiting economies of scale for ONE product (H-47), and ignore other examples of this sound operational and financial discipline used for many other products shared by all services?

But there is one simple aspect to the H-47 that your not ackonowledging: First, there's the fact that that the USAF has already once earlier said "no thanks" to the H-47 back in the early 1980's when they selected the MH-53 instead and two there must be some reason as to why no other branch of the US military other than the Army has ever used the H-47 in it's 45+ years of service? The last thing the taxpayer needs is another "Boeing-bone" thrown their way to reward them for their complacency and lack of innovation when it comes to offering the warfighter the latest in modern technology.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 23):
Ryan, you've made the claim of the all powerful 3 engined EH-101 before on another thread. Fact is there are high altitude areas on the planet and the CSAR forces want to be able to operate safely and effectively at these high and often hot locations. The USAF has already lost one HH-60 helicopter with fatalities operating in Afghanistan when it got in trouble at high altitude, and we all saw the dramatic loss of another USAF HH-60 rolling down the side of Mtn Hood during a rescue.

First lets not forget that all three of the aircraft in CSAR-X can meet the mission criteria as mandated by the USAF so while keeping that in mind the USAF needs also to remember that CSAR will not solely be used at high altitude. We're looking at the entire picture here and unlike the JSF competition which was award basically off of the STOVL version we shouldn't award the bid based on one specific aspect.


Quoting Curt22 (Reply 23):
The combined power of the EH-101 engines generate a total of 5760 SHP...the two H-47G engines generate 9800 SHP. The EH-101 is NOT another H-53 "Echo" who's engines generate more then 13000SHP. The 101 is a fine machine but it was designed to operate in low and cool European environments, for it's European customers...it was not designed to serve in high/hot environments and does not have anywhere near the lift and horsepower of the 53 Echo or the 47 Golf.

However the benefits of having three engines are that in the rare but more than plausible scenario when the aircraft may suffer an engine failure you still have more power available to the operator with two of those three engines still working than you would with a two engined aircraft who loses an engine - that's a big plus when your operating at the edges of your flight envelope and as I see it a huge plus for the US-101 which is the only three engined offer in this competition.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 23):
Make no mistake...the KC-X and CSAR-X source selection aren't jobs program dreamed up by politicians, and those with intellectual integrity do not preach the love for one specific vendor over another with no supporting evidence of claims of such superiority. The work of supporting the troops and keeping them alive is deadly serious and sadly, has been paid for in blood time and time again when machines have been pressed into service in situations they were not designed for.

Oh make no mistake about it my advocation has nothing to do with the politics of who and where its ultimately made, I argue that the much more modern and maintainable US-101 is the clear and logical choice for CSAR and quite frankly I'd be more than comfortable to solely use the arguments of the British who operate both similar versions of the Boeing and LM bids to provide for the tangible evidence necessary to conclude that the US-101 is what you want for CSAR where the H-47 is what you want for all-around heavy utility.

I honestly and genuinely believe that the initial award to Boeing was nothing more than bone thrown there way and even quite possibly as a consolation for the inevitable conclusion that probably already apparent to the USAF that they would not be selecting Boeing for KC-X.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Even USAF said proce was not a consideration in the KC-45 program. If it was, they could not choise an airplane that costs $40M more than the competitor. Since a KC-777 would have been based off an airframe with a frozen design, the B-777-200LRF, it would have a lower risk than the airplane selected, tha A-330-200F, which does not have a frozen design.

Price was very well indeed a factor but perhaps your thinking of it in a different perspective than that of what the USAF ultimately used it as? Also, the A330-200F was not the aircraft selected, it was a standard A330-200 which NG may ultimately convert to the Freighter down the line, but that was not the aircraft for which the KC-30 proposal to the USAF was based off of.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Go back and look again. USAF is required to look at economic factors that generate or keep in place US jobs. here the Boeing proposition would have kept in place some 29,000 US jobs, andf generated another 15,000 jobs. The NG/EADS would create 25,000 new jobs. What is not addessed is can those original 29,000 Boeing related jobs (not all work for Boeing) keep working?

Sue Payton specifically said on 29 February during the selection award decision that it would have been against the law for they to have considred jobs in this award - those were her words. And second, these "job" numbers are so arbitrary it's not even funny - if they were to start having to use these as sets of criteria they'd be lucky to back those figures up to the tune of half of what they boast.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Had the KC-767AT been selected, several hundred at NG and EADS-US would have been laid off. But, now, how many will be laid off because the A-330MRTT was selected?

Oh you sound like a politican from Washington State, cry me a river. First of all most of the Boeing employees would be moved to other projects within the company and second the NG award claims more US jobs than Boeing's bid so I don't know what your talking about in the first place anyways?

Quote:
American KC-45A Suppliers

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and employ 48,000 direct and indirect American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.



http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/suppliers.html
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:43 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Go back and look again. USAF is required to look at economic factors that generate or keep in place US jobs. here the Boeing proposition would have kept in place some 29,000 US jobs, andf generated another 15,000 jobs. The NG/EADS would create 25,000 new jobs. What is not addessed is can those original 29,000 Boeing related jobs (not all work for Boeing) keep working?

The entire problem with the jobs measure is that it doesn't specify actual man-years of labor required, which determines the value of said job.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
I thought that a B777-LRF design would be impossible for this bid because GE was part of the NG-EADS-GE bid.

Nothing prevents any company from participating in more than one bid other than internal corporate politics or an exclusivity clause. Unless NG-EADS demanded exclusivity, I don't see any reason why GE couldn't be part of a 777 bid. And I don't think GE would sign an exclusivity pact if it would prevent them from participating in a 777 bid for a USAF contract.

[Edited 2008-03-16 12:47:00]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:45 pm

Curt,

If the USAF want a heavylift special forces support helicopter to allow them to 'compete' with the 160th, and if they need a capacity greater than the Merlin offers then there's no doubt that the HH-47 is the best option available.

The Chinook is a great aircraft, and the UK RAF is very much the better for having the type in its inventory.

But it is not a CSAR aircraft. (Especially not with the changes to JPR/CSAR doctrine which underline the need for fast and covert employment).

Difficult to winch from, and with a nasty susceptability to brown out, it's impossible to approach survivors covertly in a Chinook, whereas Merlin is fast, very quiet, and agile, and a good winching platform, with a huge door. Merlin is reliable, maintainable and VERY deployable, and very cost effective.
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:21 pm

THREAD CREEP

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
and a good winching platform, with a huge door

I love the Merlin, but the winch has to be moved to prevent people smacking their heads on the sponson- the Danish wouldn't take their Merlins until it was moved- and the huge door is quite high of the ground, higher the the Mk4 Sea King.


But I agree, it would be a better CASR-X.

Back to the topic in hand.


Does anyone seeing Boeing winning their appeal?
 
art
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:42 pm



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 30):
Back to the topic in hand.


Does anyone seeing Boeing winning their appeal?

Some a.netters. Does anyone else see Boeing winning their appeal? I'm referring to the appeal itself, not to the selection by the USAF being thwarted by the politicians refusing funding.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:56 pm



Quoting Art (Reply 31):
Does anyone else see Boeing winning their appeal? I'm referring to the appeal itself, not to the selection by the USAF being thwarted by the politicians refusing funding.

It's possible. Especially if the Air Force did what was alleged in another thread:

Quote:
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 340):
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 323):
That includes COST (FACT), Operating costs (including through life support) (FACT), and mission capability. (FACT)[/i]

Cost basis was one specific item Boeing based its protest on... that it allowed commercial cost basis on the KC30 but mandated military cost profile basis on the KC767... Boeing has built enough 767s that they should be able to estimate commercial costs, USAF said no.

Don't forget the USAF is not allowed to pay for extra "capability" unless the extra capability is documented in the RFP. It wasn't.

If the above is indeed true, I see a new RFP in the future. Regardless of how superior the EADS offering might be. You can't evaluate competing bids using different criteria.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:28 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 27):
First of all most of the Boeing employees would be moved to other projects within the company and second the NG award claims more US jobs than Boeing's bid so I don't know what your talking about in the first place anyways?

What you don't get is the jobs not created. Sure maybe most of the 767 workers move to the 787 line. But if the 767 ultimately gets selected then they have to hire more people rather than absorb the idled 767 workers. Second the domestic content of the KC-767 is upwards of 85 percent (I say upwards because the conventional 767-200 is 85 percent) and the militarized version of the A330-200 is only 58 percent if you include the military countermeasures and avionics. Do the math. It only stands to reason that more work and more of my tax dollars will remain in the US if the KC-767 is chosen.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:58 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 33):
because the conventional 767-200 is 85 percent

Totally and absolutely false, with RR engines on one, it is only just over 50%.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/767/97031cb0.png
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:29 am



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
Boeing says that if the AF would have said what they wanted in the first place, they could have offered the 777.....
It's supposed to be based on getting the best deal for the money.

I doubt that the 777 could offer its great capability for the same money. The A332 platform offered much more capability for nearly the same price as the 767. The 777 platform will hardly achieve this. It would supersede even the KC10 in size, capability and price.
If capability scales up for "nearly free" (A330 vs. 767) on the one hand but goes with proportional increased prices on the other hand (777 vs. A330) the chances of the 777 do not improve greatly.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:11 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
VERY deployable

Very deployable??? I believe you mentioned being located somewhere near RAF Benson....If so, have you had a chance to see the four each 1.5 metric ton, 10 foot tall "jacks" that are attached to the 101 airframe to make this machine "very deployable"?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:19 pm



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 30):
Does anyone seeing Boeing winning their appeal?

Can Boeing win?

This is how the "Creep" began...LM and SAC won their first protest of CSAR-X on ONE of about two dozen complaints. This one point that GAO upheld was that the USAF did not adequately explain how they would evaluate life cycle cost (LCC). GAO did not find fault with the LCC, but with the wording the USAF used.

It may be possible that Boeing will make much the same claim, that the USAF failed to explain that they would give "extra credit" for a contender that offered much more cargo and payload than what the RFP called for. BA's argument might be, had they known of this extra credit...they would have bid the 777, an airframe much more equal to the A-330 than the 767.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:29 pm

Curt,

I watched them break one down to load it into a C-17, mate! I've only seen the reassembly on video, but that looked quick, too.

I have good friends who have flown them out from Benson to Iraq, too - something they prefer not to do with the Puma and Chinook.

And the recent refuelling trial also went very well.

So yes, VERY deployable is what I meant.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:40 pm

The WSJ has an article out this morning on the Boeing appeal. Some items of note:

Quote:
Boeing said it believes the total cost of each team's proposal over the 25-year life of the program was much closer. According to the document, Boeing's proposal would have cost $108.04 billion, just above the Northrop team's $108.01 billion.



Quote:
Boeing says the Air Force tried to compel it -- in an alleged violation of U.S. acquisition regulations -- to provide detailed data about how much it costs to produce a commercial version of the 767.

While such information is routinely provided for items such as weapons and other systems that are used only for military purposes, Boeing contended that it wasn't required to submit such competitively sensitive information in this case. This ruling led the Air Force to "drastically" increase Boeing's estimated costs in several areas by a total of $5.2 billion, while assigning additional development and design risk that Boeing believes was unwarranted, the company said...

...Boeing said the Air Force commended it during a meeting in October for supplying "unprecedented" levels of cost data. But during the debriefing following the loss to Northrop, Boeing said, a senior Air Force cost evaluator told company officials that he had refused to give "any credit or credibility" to Boeing's information, "announcing that all Boeing had submitted were 'marketing materials' and some 'graphs with lines on them.' "



Quote:
Boeing also said it believes it didn't get enough credit for having a history of building tankers, while its competitor had an "incomplete and unstable intercontinental production plan" that involves building some airplanes in Europe before ultimately transferring final assembly to a yet-to-be-built plant in Mobile, Ala. The Air Force's conclusion that the Northrop team had a greater chance of success "cannot be squared with reality or reason," Boeing wrote.

There's also the issue of the Air Force tweaking the Northrop-designed model so that the A330 fared better on smaller airfields, rather than using "real world" constraints, in order to keep NG/EADS in the competition. Boeing claims the Air Force assured it that despite the "tweaking" they would still give Boeing credit for situations where the 767 airframe's size could give it an edge. And Boeing is now saying that never happened. What I find interesting is that several reports have stated that Boeing never protested the change in the evaluation for this particular issue and, therefore, they don't have standing to appeal. However, if they were assured that they wouldn't get penalized for the change (obviously, they'd have to show corroborrative evidence to back it up), it would seem they would have valid grounds after the fact to appeal.

Finally, Boeing appears to be interjecting the WTO dispute into this. They're claiming that the competition's airplane benefited from government launch aid.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205...7704540961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

(Subscription required.)

[Edited 2008-03-17 07:47:17]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3691
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 39):
Finally, Boeing appears to be interjecting the WTO dispute into this. They're claiming that the competition's airplane benefited government launch aid.

That one cracked me up!

So, European taxpayers are allegedly paying for the USAF tankers now? Big grin

The one thing they should not do is bring an unsettled WTO dispute into this, no matter how right they think they are on this one, especially since Boeing's military contracts are part of this dispute...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:09 pm



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
the Airforce decided they liked the idea of larger, more capable plane




(click here to view)
J.D. Crowe
Mobile Register
Mar 3, 2008
EditorialCartoonists.com
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:05 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 39):
The WSJ has an article out this morning on the Boeing appeal. Some items of note:

Quote:
Boeing said it believes the total cost of each team's proposal over the 25-year life of the program was much closer. According to the document, Boeing's proposal would have cost $108.04 billion, just above the Northrop team's $108.01 billion

So Boeing consider (therefore worst case..) that the bids were pretty much even, whilst A-net opposers of the KC30 continue to convince themselves that the KC30 was $40m a frame more expensive than the KC767..  scratchchin 

Rgds
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:15 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 39):
Finally, Boeing appears to be interjecting the WTO dispute into this. They're claiming that the competition's airplane benefited from government launch aid.

and during the selection process both primes had to agree that any additional costs which may be incurred by the primes from the results of the WTO dispute would not be passed on to the USAF
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:40 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 38):
I watched them break one down to load it into a C-17, mate! I've only seen the reassembly on video, but that looked quick, too.

I have good friends who have flown them out from Benson to Iraq, too - something they prefer not to do with the Puma and Chinook.

And the recent refuelling trial also went very well.

So yes, VERY deployable is what I meant.

I heard about the self deployment to Iraq as well, no small feat for any helicopter to be sure... if memory serves, this effort took the better part of a week. I'm sure limited airlift helped make the decision to self deploy a bit easier for the boys at Benson, but this isn't really the issue. CSAR-X does require a deployment anywhere in the world in 24 hrs or less...and since the USAF CSAR forces have more airlift available...they don't really need to think about self deployment much.

I'm sure the 101 is a fine machine (saying this hoping the Canadians crash last week was not due to tail rotors again), and I don't think deployability is an issue for the 101, huge jacks or not...Don't get me wrong, the huge jacks are clever solution to lower the acft eliminating the need for additional disassembly that would add time and complexity to the process.

As for the next BA protest...recent hints in the media indicate a claim against the USAF adding cost that BA did NOT submit in their proposal, but I'm sure BA will throw everything they can think of into the protest since vendors typically only get one bite at the apple.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:24 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 42):
So Boeing consider (therefore worst case..) that the bids were pretty much even, whilst A-net opposers of the KC30 continue to convince themselves that the KC30 was $40m a frame more expensive than the KC767..

It's saying that Boeing's proposal came in at $108.04 billion whereas NG/EADS' came in at $108.01 billion. I guess the question is: are those purely Boeing's numbers for both sides? If so, why would Boeing include speculative numbers for NG/EADS in their appeal unless they knew for a fact that is what NG/EADS was proposing for their cost? You would think they would rely on factual numbers if they are going to present these issues in an appeal. Therefore, I'm assuming they've already been told by the USAF what the cost numbers were for NG/EADS.

Now, if the $108.04B number is NG/EADS' proposal numbers then I have two questions:

1) Does that number include the insfrastructure expenditures required to allow the A330 airframe to fly from existing tanker bases (and we can assume it does not, which means the total proposal cost is far North of what was quoted by NG/EADS);

and

2) How does anyone offer a plane so much larger and, by all accounts, so much more sophisticated at a LOWER cost? Especially when the price obviously has to include a final assembly line and supply chain that has yet to be built (which means the much larger and sophisticated airplane is even cheaper per airframe than the $108.04B quoted for the entire 179).

(By the way, don't jump and mug me for the above comments. I'm genuinely interested in knowing the answer to a couple of obvious questions.)
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:37 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 45):
Therefore, I'm assuming they've already been told by the USAF what the cost numbers were for NG/EADS.

That should be interesting, that is what caused a number of Boeing people to end up in goal last time.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 45):
1) Does that number include the insfrastructure expenditures required to allow the A330 airframe to fly from existing tanker bases (and we can assume it does not, which means the total proposal cost is far North of what was quoted by NG/EADS);

Doubt it, neither Boeing or Airbus are paying for any infrastructure expenditure for the USAF, it was never part of the RFP. It is a false assumption in my view to say the KC-767 would need no infrastructure expenditure either, it is also larger than the KC-135, not smaller.

Why do you think it is necessary for Boeing to be clutching at straws at issues that are not in the RFP/SRD ?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 45):
2) How does anyone offer a plane so much larger and, by all accounts, so much more sophisticated at a LOWER cost? Especially when the price obviously has to include a final assembly line and supply chain that has yet to be built (which means the much larger and sophisticated airplane is even cheaper per airframe than the $108.04B quoted for the entire 179).

1) it is not "so much larger"
2) more automated construction
3) high volume construction
4) using a design that leveraging off 4 other tanker competitions using the same hardware, the USAF is the 5th customer for the KC-30, it would be the first and only customer for the KC-767AT (different wing, gear, fuselage, engines, boom, hoses, cockpit than the other KC-767s).
5) building the aircraft in Al where the cost of employing people is lower than WA

Points 2 & 3 are not only common in aerospace, just look at the Japanese automotive industry compared to the US.

NG/EADS has said they will invest 600 million for the KC-30 assembly in mobile (which is for the NG military facility, and the EADS civil facility), the civil side of that for EADS North America will not only spread the costs over the tankers, but the civil A330s assembled there as well.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:05 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 33):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 27):
First of all most of the Boeing employees would be moved to other projects within the company and second the NG award claims more US jobs than Boeing's bid so I don't know what your talking about in the first place anyways?

What you don't get is the jobs not created. Sure maybe most of the 767 workers move to the 787 line. But if the 767 ultimately gets selected then they have to hire more people rather than absorb the idled 767 workers. Second the domestic content of the KC-767 is upwards of 85 percent (I say upwards because the conventional 767-200 is 85 percent) and the militarized version of the A330-200 is only 58 percent if you include the military countermeasures and avionics. Do the math. It only stands to reason that more work and more of my tax dollars will remain in the US if the KC-767 is chosen.

The KC-30 will stil have more US parts content than Boeing's 787 and besides, look again at those job numbers - Boeing claimed 44,000 jobs and NG revised their numbers to 48,000.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 37):
Can Boeing win?

This is how the "Creep" began...LM and SAC won their first protest of CSAR-X on ONE of about two dozen complaints. This one point that GAO upheld was that the USAF did not adequately explain how they would evaluate life cycle cost (LCC). GAO did not find fault with the LCC, but with the wording the USAF used.

It may be possible that Boeing will make much the same claim, that the USAF failed to explain that they would give "extra credit" for a contender that offered much more cargo and payload than what the RFP called for. BA's argument might be, had they known of this extra credit...they would have bid the 777, an airframe much more equal to the A-330 than the 767.

Perhaps in lieu of lessons learned from CSAR-X the GAO may not be so inclined to further sustain certain such claims?

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 41):
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
the Airforce decided they liked the idea of larger, more capable plane

HA! It's not the size, but rather how you use it that counts! Big grin

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 44):
and since the USAF CSAR forces have more airlift available...they don't really need to think about self deployment much.

I'd still prefer the aircraft that has greater maintainability as well as coming a lot closer to meeting the two hour goal as set by the USAF rather than the one who barely met the 3 hour maximum time limit! Throw in a quieter acoustic ingress at relatively similar speeds and range, if I were behind enemy lines looking for a pickup I'd rather hope for a US-101 coming to get me than the HH-47.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 44):
saying this hoping the Canadians crash last week was not due to tail rotors again

Are you referring to the recent completion and subsequent publication of the findings into the inquiry on the September 2006 CH-149 crash that was ultimately ruled to be of human error and not to have anything to do with engineering? Very sad event indeed but that should not tarnish the overall integrity of the airworthiness of the -101 program.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...080312.CRASHTWO11/TPStory/National

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 45):
2) How does anyone offer a plane so much larger and, by all accounts, so much more sophisticated at a LOWER cost? Especially when the price obviously has to include a final assembly line and supply chain that has yet to be built (which means the much larger and sophisticated airplane is even cheaper per airframe than the $108.04B quoted for the entire 179).

Business - and really a rather win-win for all parties involved but it allows Airbus to get a North American assembly plant which will help offset the weak dollar as well as go to help increase future probabilities of orders from North American operators such as FedEx and UPS who will have a lot of freighters to be replcaed in the near future. It's like marketing - your spending a lot of money on an intangible asset but the price is worth every penny if you invest it properly.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:59 am

Does Boeing have a chance? Considering that this is the first protest from the company they probably feel that they do have a chance.

If the NG/Airbus bid is close in total costs to the Boeing bid and 4 330s can do the work of 5 767s then congress can cut funding 20% - something that needs to be done these days. By it's nature, the Air Force deals in very expensive equipment and they will be looking for a lot of money every year. Some overruns (like the helicopter for the President now costing $400 million each - more than the 747 Air Force Ones) are going to take more money from purchases like the tankers and fighter programs are going to get their funds reduced also.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:51 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 27):
Quote:
American KC-45A Suppliers

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and employ 48,000 direct and indirect American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.

It must be magic...........  praise 

It was only last month that NG/EADS was saying if the KC-30 was selected, it would employ 25,000 US workers. Now, that number has nearly doubled, since Boeing (who said the KC-767AT would employ 44,000 US workers) filed their protest.  liar 

Could this have something to do with the numbers of workers that Congress is worried about?  scratchchin 

BTW, what exactly is an "inderect worker"? Is an inderect worker the kid at the McDonalds counter that hands the NG emplyee his hamburger at lunch?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
Quoting Alien (Reply 33):
because the conventional 767-200 is 85 percent

Totally and absolutely false, with RR engines on one, it is only just over 50%.

Only a few B-767s (42?) were equipped with RR engines, all the others have P&W or GE engines. On those airplanes, the US content would be 80%+. But, a RR equipped B-767 has about the same US content (about 52%) as a GE or P&W equipped A-330 does.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 35):
same price

USAF said all along the price ins less important. They did prove that as apparently the KC-30 design is some $37M -$40M more expensive, depending on which Congressman you believe (some have even said the KC-30 is $25M cheaper than the KC-767).  redflag   redflag   redflag 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests