Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, you have to admire the yanks, buy American, keep American jobs
So that new factory and 45,000 jobs were not going to be in the usa then?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when Boeing get awarded the contract, will EADS be allowed to object? No, thought not.
The GAO actually is very non-partisan. The Air Farce really screwed up he procurement process (again). For example:
The GAO report went on to say:
"In short, the Air Force misled Boeing when the agency advised the firm that it met this objective but later determined that Boeing did not fully meet this objective and did not reopen discussions with Boeing on this issue. The Air Force also treated the firm unequally when it provided Northrop Grumman but not Boeing with continued discussions on this same objective. It is axiomatic that procuring agencies may not conduct discussions in a manner that favors one offer over another."
"In short, the Air Force misled Boeing when the agency advised the firm that it met this objective but later determined that Boeing did not fully meet this objective and did not reopen discussions with Boeing on this issue. The Air Force also treated the firm unequally when it provided Northrop Grumman but not Boeing with continued discussions on this same objective. It is axiomatic that procuring agencies may not conduct discussions in a manner that favors one offer over another."
Guest
Posts: n/a
With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products.
Just get used to it, America !!!
But to 'borrow' from another famous one-liner, "It takes a continent..."
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who screwed up first ???
One of the many aggravating things about this mess is that Boeing brought it all on themselves right at the start when there was NO competitor, so why on earth did upper levels at the company feel they had to use the "ggod offices" of the lady who later caught the blast ? She's probably a lot worse off than the execs who got shoved out, by the way.
Round 2 showed that now there is a worthwhile competitor - gone are the days when Boeing could feel "entitled". The subsequent screams about job-losses hardly stand up, but the pols that are amking them aren't to know, being fed by their paymaster. The patriotism thing is just cringe-making ... Is it "patriotic" to make your Air FOrce fly second-choice aircraft ?
Let's hope Round 3 proves that the playing field really is "spirit-level level"
(Some hopes).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She's probably a lot worse off than the execs who got shoved out, by the way.
Ex-Boeing executive jailed for 4 months
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, let's face it - if Boeing had won again it would have been seen a homer decision, rewarding miscreants etc. So AF is "over-fair" to EADS but in doing so strays into assymetric information territory - deliberately or accidentally.
Now we have "best of three" where EADS can market their aircraft as being competitive with Boeing's whereas Boeing clean up the market that is their right since they managed to buy the only other US aircraft manufacturer that could have produced a wide-bodied jet aircraft.
The South won't get to build A330Fs but they will get to build Priuses, which is almost as good right?
Now we have "best of three" where EADS can market their aircraft as being competitive with Boeing's whereas Boeing clean up the market that is their right since they managed to buy the only other US aircraft manufacturer that could have produced a wide-bodied jet aircraft.
The South won't get to build A330Fs but they will get to build Priuses, which is almost as good right?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Quote:
With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products.
Absolutely some marvelous airplanes listed.
Quote:
Just get used to it, America !!!
No worries.
But to 'borrow' from another famous one-liner, "It takes a continent..."
With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products.
Absolutely some marvelous airplanes listed.
Quote:
Just get used to it, America !!!
No worries.
But to 'borrow' from another famous one-liner, "It takes a continent..."
Swings and roundabouts really, oh and it's not the whole continent, just part of it 
......... Though remember, nothing this day and age is a one country product.....Boeing utilise the like of Engines, undercarriages and major assemblies etc from the world over......
Give it 25 years and it will all have "Made in China" stamped on it regardless of it being made by Boeing or Airbus or anyone else for that matter......
Though I did think regardless of internal politics, the best plane should be produced for the job it is required to carry out and the Military had their say in the previous decision that the AIrbus was indeed that plane.......
The only losers I can see are the individual States and people in them that where / are hoping for the factory to be built and the jobs it creates in some of the poorer parts of the USA...... would be nice if Boeing did eventually win the contract in the next round that they also bring some of the wealth and prosperity this contract and jobs it would have created, to the people effected by the U turn.....
Oh and with the risk of upsetting some people in here, I wouldn't class the Tornado as a "Marvelous Airplane"........... "Jack of all, Master of none" more like.
Last edited by NutLoose; 10th Jul 2008 at 18:45.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
The only losers I can see are the individual States and people in them that where / are hoping for the factory to be built and the jobs it creates in some of the poorer parts of the USA
I have reached the point I don't really care who wins just so long as we get a plane soon...we'll make it work.
...same with CSAR-X.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Carolina
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-45A
US Herk wrote:
No, the real losers are the USAF, the folks on the line flying the 60 year old KC-135s, maintaining them, modifying them, etc.
Hello Ladies/Gents,
Right up front I'll indicate that my employer is Northrop Grumman in Bethpage, NY, this division here is heading up E-2C, the new E-2D, EA-6B
and partners with Boeing- St. Louis on the EA-18G. Is their some "favoritism" on my behalf, of course!
The simple fact remains as US Herk posted and many others- it's the "Warfighters" who are being held hostage by this USAF procurement mess.
Those airframes and engines are wearing out due to Tanking demands all over this world.
As the RFP comes out to address the GAO eight points that were found deficient, re-submit a revised proposal by both competitors and let the better Tanker win and get on with the show!
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
PS: Senator Allen from Washington State is already complaining that the "deck" is still stacked toward Norhthrop Grumman-EADS, when will she quit mouthing off.
No, the real losers are the USAF, the folks on the line flying the 60 year old KC-135s, maintaining them, modifying them, etc.
Hello Ladies/Gents,
Right up front I'll indicate that my employer is Northrop Grumman in Bethpage, NY, this division here is heading up E-2C, the new E-2D, EA-6B
and partners with Boeing- St. Louis on the EA-18G. Is their some "favoritism" on my behalf, of course!
The simple fact remains as US Herk posted and many others- it's the "Warfighters" who are being held hostage by this USAF procurement mess.
Those airframes and engines are wearing out due to Tanking demands all over this world.
As the RFP comes out to address the GAO eight points that were found deficient, re-submit a revised proposal by both competitors and let the better Tanker win and get on with the show!
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
PS: Senator Allen from Washington State is already complaining that the "deck" is still stacked toward Norhthrop Grumman-EADS, when will she quit mouthing off.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving goalposts (again !!)
There's an item on today's Flightglobal (11th July) to the effect that the new selectors are to be told to give no credit for "extra" capability. So the so-patriotic Pols & Co are definitely going to fix a 767 "win" this time round ...
If NG "lose" (having already "won") they could always pull out and then offer USAF the A400M, which should have got airborne before Christmas - if Marshalls have got the Herc test-bed airborne at last, that is ...
just a thought, as the rest of this thread (like the "contest") is going round in circles, innit ?
If NG "lose" (having already "won") they could always pull out and then offer USAF the A400M, which should have got airborne before Christmas - if Marshalls have got the Herc test-bed airborne at last, that is ...
just a thought, as the rest of this thread (like the "contest") is going round in circles, innit ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
jp,
In 2004, Boeing 'won' the contest. Then it was determined that the rules weren't quite followed and the competition was re-opened. Did you complain about that decision?
Again, while not advocating for the lesser tanker to win, whichever it might be, complaining about this decision doesn't seem warranted.
How about a novel concept of issue the proposal, then whomever meets it following the rules without outside influence, with the best price, wins?
In 2004, Boeing 'won' the contest. Then it was determined that the rules weren't quite followed and the competition was re-opened. Did you complain about that decision?
Again, while not advocating for the lesser tanker to win, whichever it might be, complaining about this decision doesn't seem warranted.
How about a novel concept of issue the proposal, then whomever meets it following the rules without outside influence, with the best price, wins?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my last - I really, really don't care anymore who "wins". There will always be fault to be found, or areas lacking in any aircraft - they are, by nature, compromises - the folks on the line will make it work. Just as they've made 60 year old aircraft work...
And no matter how good an aircraft is at "X", someone will shout how they're deficient in "Y" or the other aircraft is better at "Y" - it truthfully doesn't matter.
Give us something & we'll get on with it.
Refuelled with a "new" KC-135R today - a '63 model!!!
And no matter how good an aircraft is at "X", someone will shout how they're deficient in "Y" or the other aircraft is better at "Y" - it truthfully doesn't matter.
Give us something & we'll get on with it.
Refuelled with a "new" KC-135R today - a '63 model!!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brickhistory
In 2004, Boeing 'won' the contest. Then it was determined that the rules weren't quite followed and the competition was re-opened. Did you complain about that decision?
In 2004 there was NO "competition"... the deal was a no-bid, sole-source lease of the KC767 without any consideration of any other possibility.
The "rules that weren't quite followed" were those banning conflict of interest, and pay-offs in the form of high-paying job positions in return for a crooked lease deal. It was a corruption issue, plain & simple... nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the KC767.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GK121, the details of the first tanker fiasco are really moot (other than the USAF and Boeing being corrupt).
EADS and the Europeans were more than happy to have that one go down the tubes since it wasn't fair.
How can they b1tch about this one since the USAF screwed a different but still unfair pooch?
Again, for the last time, I'm not advocating for either one as the better tanker just get something decided and start building.
EADS and the Europeans were more than happy to have that one go down the tubes since it wasn't fair.
How can they b1tch about this one since the USAF screwed a different but still unfair pooch?
Again, for the last time, I'm not advocating for either one as the better tanker just get something decided and start building.
It was only when, at an independent research organisation, we conducted an indepenedent assessment of capability based upon defined RW conditions (10000 ft balanced field, sea level +15 deg C and still-air) that the truth about the KC-767A was revealed....
It was a simple problem and one for which each nation was asked to supply their own data:
Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.
The answer:
First question from the American data providers was a request to use 12000 ft balanced field, not 10000ft. This was refused.
It would be interesting to learn whether the USAF made specific requirements for RW performance. E.g. Mildenhall to Mildenhall at +15C and still-air, what would be the max fuel available at RTOW and 3-crew only ZFW without cargo?
If Boeing win, it will be difficult for the KC-767A to be known as anything other than 'The Tanker the USAF Didn't Want'. And when being flown in Guantanamo Bay class luxury in an austere, windowless environment, the KC-767A's passnegers can think about the normal airline standards being enjoyed by those fortunate enough to be flying in the A330MRTT.
Give the USAF the casting vote - and tell the whining politicians to get lost!
It was a simple problem and one for which each nation was asked to supply their own data:
Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.
The answer:
- KC-767: 50000 kg
- A310MRTT: 45500 kg
- A330MRTT: 82500 kg
First question from the American data providers was a request to use 12000 ft balanced field, not 10000ft. This was refused.
It would be interesting to learn whether the USAF made specific requirements for RW performance. E.g. Mildenhall to Mildenhall at +15C and still-air, what would be the max fuel available at RTOW and 3-crew only ZFW without cargo?
If Boeing win, it will be difficult for the KC-767A to be known as anything other than 'The Tanker the USAF Didn't Want'. And when being flown in Guantanamo Bay class luxury in an austere, windowless environment, the KC-767A's passnegers can think about the normal airline standards being enjoyed by those fortunate enough to be flying in the A330MRTT.
Give the USAF the casting vote - and tell the whining politicians to get lost!
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Jul 2008 at 07:30.
GK121, the details of the first tanker fiasco are really moot (other than the USAF and Boeing being corrupt).
EADS and the Europeans were more than happy to have that one go down the tubes since it wasn't fair.
How can they b1tch about this one since the USAF screwed a different but still unfair pooch?
Again, for the last time, I'm not advocating for either one as the better tanker just get something decided and start building.
EADS and the Europeans were more than happy to have that one go down the tubes since it wasn't fair.
How can they b1tch about this one since the USAF screwed a different but still unfair pooch?
Again, for the last time, I'm not advocating for either one as the better tanker just get something decided and start building.
It seems possibile the USAF will be absolutely seething over this, and resentment at Boeing for causing this stink will be on a scale that will ensure when its done 100% fairly this time they will again, in all likelihood, loose. It could be interesting in that given the spotlight now on this, and hence the need to do it now absolutely fairly - it could actually prove to be very difficult to politically manipulate without the US looking like muppets globally (of course this maybe an acceptable price to the administration for home grown votes).
I'd hope that NG, having being awarded the contract once, can claim huge damages if they subsequently do not win again due to lost revenue, all the huge long lead time orders they'll have placed with suppliers, the investment they will have made to start up production etc. There could already be huge amounts of early KC45 spend committed by NG that the US taxpayer will have to stump up for even if the competition is overturned. Anyone know how long NG were in "Go Mode" before things the decision was officially overturned? I assume the USAF will now have put NG work on hold, but even this could still be costing them a fortune.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M
The goldilocks factor favours the A400M - C-17 ... Too much aircraft for quite a lot of tasks, C-130 not quite big enough these days (internal width) ... A400M - just right for modern military loads ... (Still unproven, specially the engines ...).
Watch Marshalls at Cambridge for news of ground run progress - and getting the poor old Herc flying - and then the joy at Seville when at last they're cleared to get all four engines flying together in formation on the A400M.
P L U S ... The A400M's not from Boeing ... 'nuff said.
Watch Marshalls at Cambridge for news of ground run progress - and getting the poor old Herc flying - and then the joy at Seville when at last they're cleared to get all four engines flying together in formation on the A400M.
P L U S ... The A400M's not from Boeing ... 'nuff said.
Last edited by Jig Peter; 12th Jul 2008 at 14:25. Reason: Forgot a bit ... JP