Posted on 08/11/2008 6:56:13 AM PDT by MHalblaub
Yes, but the Pentagon just changed the parameters of the bid such that it will heavily favor Boeing’s competitor. The handwriting is on the wall and Boeing has evidently said, “Screw this!”
That’s my read. I’m sure some people will disagree.
Re: 767-400 (or even 767-300): We specifically asked the question about the 767-300 of Boeing at its tanker briefing at the Farnborough Air Show. The response was that the longer fuselage means the airplane would require a shallower rotation to avoid a tail strike (or in this case, a tail-boom strike). This means a longer take-off run and a longer runway requirement. The USAF specified a 7,000 ft runway requirement in the first RFP (and this is unchanged in the second).
Use of the 767-400 would only aggravate the rotation/take-off roll situation.
Boeing would protest, because their System Development costs are much higher than NG/EADs' costs. Boeing has to develop the 767AT airframe, develop the 6th Generation boom, and develop the integrated avionics, all of which are different from the Japanese and Italian KC-767s built to date
The Pro-Boeing Tanker War Blog even doubts that Boeing could afford to develop a prototype with the $1.5 billion allocated in the KC-X contract for SDD.
And in spite of the constant "Eisenhower Era" mantra, some question the urgency of replacing the KC-135E.
How urgent is the KC-135 replacement?
But John Young, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, surprised me in his testimony last month. Here's what he said:
"The truth is, KC-135s currently have, on average, 17,000 hours and they have a structural life of 36,000 to 39,000 hours. Those airplanes have plenty of life. We could continue with those airplanes structurally. Those airplanes were designed in a time where we developed more robust structures. Today's airplanes have less robust structures. I think it remains to be seen whether [newer] planes can serve for 25, 40 or 50 years."
Update: 0840AM PDT: Boeing told us the Aviation Week piece is “news to us.” Boeing (and Northrop) meet with the USAF Tuesday (Aug. 12) to review the Draft RFP. If Boeing has anything to say publicly, it won’t be until Wednesday, we’re told.
When your argument is insufficient, throw a full garbage can, eh?
Boeing's Dan Beck says he can't comment one way or the other on the Aviation Week story. He says Boeing has submitted its response to the Pentagon's request, and will be meeting with defense officials tomorrow to “voice our opinions” about the new proposal.
In my opinion this was the best way for Boeing to place a non bid. Now Boeing can look at the reactions without the need to comment.
In my eyes it won't be a sole source deal. DoD can nail Northrop Grumman to its first offer threatening to make a complete new competition next year.
Boeing just wants to let it look like a sole source deal.
“When your argument is insufficient, throw a full garbage can, eh?”
My argument is that its foolish when America relies on foreign suppliers for her defense. And the “KC-30” is nothing but a European made Airbus with Northrop Grumman’s name on it. It’s also disgraceful when Americans put market ideology over our defense. Scoop out all the garbage you want from that.
“And in spite of the constant “Eisenhower Era” mantra, some question the urgency of replacing the KC-135E.”
As much as I’m a supporter of Boeing in this fight, the fact is, that’s a damned good question. We just re-engined them and put a glass cockpit in them a few years ago, and they do have plenty of airframe life left. I’d rather us NOT buy a new tanker at all, but if we’re going to, I damn sure don’t want to see a foreign company get the contract. I’m all for international competition in the civilian market. But we’re fools to use anything but American suppliers for defense items. I know we do from time to time, but that still doesn’t make it any less foolish.
Roger that “Been there, saw that” stuff to which I like to add “and I payed the price for a wardrobe to match the T-shirt
“Attempted competition” works at subcontract level but this is a pot load of money to be spent...on the other hand, original award to EADS has not been terminated and they could (?) simply go ahead and negotiate on that basis.
In a section completely unrelated to the requirement being modified, slipped in between acres of boilerplate, or by hiding a specific requirement under "general".
(My favorite was an attempt to bust someone for non compliance to "implied requirements")
The DOD wants the other tanker and everyone knows it.
1. Immensely too costly and (more) inefficient too to maintain a mixed fleet, particularly when;
2. I've read that DOD considers the KC10 to be a much younger AC than KC135, hence the 10's will remain in service considerably longer. The KC10 already provides the larger capacity chores that the EADS AC would be getting points for while the Boeing AC actually does serve to replace the very old and hard to maintain KC135.
Also interesting to note that we continue to fly B52s built in the sixties and far over their planned flying hours and we are replacing KC135 built in the sixties but well under planned flying hours. Both are expensive to maintain and fly, both are doing their jobs, but there are overall savings in updating from a commercial baseline and you can't do that with a bomber.
My favorite was a gubmint program manager saying it was too much work to write out the requirements or define the scope.
The USAF has two major types of KC-135 left in it's inventory (if you ignore the few modified to handle isolated fuels for the SR-71, and the few that have had the multi-point refueling wing pods added) the -E (for Eisenhower, apparently) and the -R.
The -Rs were the ones re-engined with CFM-56s. Approximately 200 of these will remain in inventory and on active duty after the last of the 179 KC-X aircraft are purchased.
It is mostly the earlier -Es that were re-engined with TF-33s that will be replaced by the KC-X contract.
“Performance Specification” certainly means different things to different people.
Before you hit the send button, answer the question, "Do I want to debate or flame?". It will save all of us a lot of time and wasted effort, and it will determine how the rest of us see you.
Snicker.
Wrong. Remember this? Apparently it's gone down the memory hole at the Pentagon and the White House...
Northrop-EADS threatens to withdraw bid for US Air Force contract, leaving only BoeingBoeing withdrew the 777 proposal ONLY AFTER being falsely assured by the USAF Pentagon honchoes that there would be no size bias, or preference for a larger plane.The Associated Press
Published: January 27, 2007WASHINGTON: The withdrawal by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the European manufacturer of Airbus from an U.S. Air Force refueling tanker contract bid potentially worth more than $100 billion (€77.5 billion) would not necessarily hand the deal to rival Boeing Co. — at least not right away.
The prospect of having only one bidder on one of the most lucrative and controversial military contracts in U.S. history is already raising eyebrows in Congress. The team formed by Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. is threatening to bow out.
"If Northrop really does decide not to compete, the Air Force could find its program stopped once again," said Frank Cevasco, a defense analyst and former Pentagon acquisitions official. "There is far too much taxpayer money involved to award a sole-source contract to Boeing. In my view the Air Force is playing a dangerous game that could backfire once more."
Still smarting from an ethics scandal that stalled the contract three years ago, the Air Force is expected to release within days its final call for bids to replace the 1950s-era KC-135 midair refueling tanker.
The contract has drawn interest from two major contractors, Chicago-based Boeing and an international team formed by Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and EADS, the Paris-based majority owner of jet maker Airbus.
The initial contract for 179 planes is worth an estimated $40 billion (€31 billion), the Air Force says. But the winning bidder could have a leg up on more than $100 billion (€77.5 billion) in work as the Air Force gradually replaces a 530-plane fleet.
Boeing would build the planes — based on its familiar 767 — in Washington state. The Northrop/EADS team would offer a modified version of the Airbus A330 plane, to be built in Mobile, Alabama.
Lawmakers star-struck over the potential economic development impact have joined in the battle and lobbied intensely for the project.
But as the Air Force completes its bidding requirements, the Northrop/EADS team is threatening to withdraw, saying the military's criteria favor Boeing. If the specifications do not change to reflect the Northrop plane's additional cargo and fuel capacity, "then we feel we would not be competitive and we would not bid," said Northrop spokesman Randy Belote.
"It's truly a multi-role, multifaceted capability that we're offering, and it's unfortunate that it's not being given an opportunity to compete and to perhaps transform the way tankers are used in the future," Belote said.
Accusations of bias in the tanker project have a familiar ring.
Congress killed an earlier Boeing contract for the plane in 2004 amid revelations that Boeing hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who admitted giving the company preferential treatment before leaving the military. The former Air Force official and a former Boeing executive who hired her were sentenced to prison in the case.
Even without that history, many lawmakers say it would be a mistake to grant Boeing the contract without competition.
"It would be a huge loss to our defense capability to have only one competitor for this aircraft," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican whose hometown of Mobile could win 1,000 new jobs if Northrop/EADS gets the project. "There should be multiple bids so that the Air Force gets the best price, the taxpayer gets the best value and the war fighter gets the most capable aircraft."
It is not just Alabama lawmakers who have criticized the process. Powerful Senate Armed Services Committee members such as Democratic Chairman Carl Levin and Republican Senator John McCain have insisted that the proposal draw a true competition.
Levin declined comment for this article, but he told reporters earlier this month that the Air Force "is going to have to persuade us that there's real competition" in the search.
Air Force officials insist they have been open and clear in their proposal. They have indicated, however, that they have no intention of changing their specifications for a smaller, more basic refueling tanker.
"Ultimately it has to be based on war fighter needs — what are the people out there using this equipment telling us they need," said Air Force spokesman Don Manuszewski.
For its part, Boeing says it stands ready to build whatever plane the Air Force wants. In recent months, the company has said it may offer a tanker based on its large 777 commercial passenger jet as an alternative to its midsize 767, which Boeing has pushed for nearly five years at a cost of more than $1 billion (€780 million).
"We're going to be ready," said Boeing's Bill Barksdale. "It would be a huge loss to our defense capability to have only one competitor for this aircraft," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican whose hometown of Mobile could win 1,000 new jobs if Northrop/EADS gets the project. "There should be multiple bids so that the Air Force gets the best price, the taxpayer gets the best value and the war fighter gets the most capable aircraft."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.