Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I disagree, there is a case for a strategic/tactical tanker mix. Through over 20 years I found the VC-10 to large on many occasions (QRA) and wanted something with a payload of about 50-60 tons, other times it was useful to have the VC-10s on the towlines without having transit home and back and just topping them up with a Tristar.
The one concept I saw I would love to see built was a tactical tanker (LM or NG? Can't remember which). Two man crew in a pressurised cockpit with bang seats. Unpressurised composite fuselage with sealed tanks, idefensive aids, stealth etc. High mounted tail engines to give cleanest flow behind the wings, integrated hoses. Long wing which looked suitable for high level ops
Looked like a great platform for supported ops in hostile territory, and a perfect platform for having a UAV version on station on-station just in case.
Never be built though - unless it already has.....
The one concept I saw I would love to see built was a tactical tanker (LM or NG? Can't remember which). Two man crew in a pressurised cockpit with bang seats. Unpressurised composite fuselage with sealed tanks, idefensive aids, stealth etc. High mounted tail engines to give cleanest flow behind the wings, integrated hoses. Long wing which looked suitable for high level ops
Looked like a great platform for supported ops in hostile territory, and a perfect platform for having a UAV version on station on-station just in case.
Never be built though - unless it already has.....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Top floor last room on the left.
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One tanker
I guess the Brits might come up with something odd like that, no doubt a thing of beauty like their other creations. Just kidding, you obviously have some decent experience on your side. I think large tanker can do what a medium tanker can do, not the other way round, and the USAF needs big boom offloads for it's strategic operations. Smaller hose refueling offloads can be done as it is now for helos etc by c-130. Time will tell, but I can't see USAF buying both KC-45 and KC-767. The US doesn't have the cash to do inefficient things like that. The whole KC-X tanker selection process is a dog and pony show, bit like judge judy sorting a poodle custody battle. Obama, Hillary..save us.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
I disagree, there is a case for a strategic/tactical tanker mix.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Carolina
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-X
Originally posted by Greenhornet:
I think large tanker can do what a medium tanker can do, not the other way round, and the USAF needs big boom offloads for it's strategic operations.
This article tells it all, bigger is better:
Why the Air Force Picked Northrop’s Tanker » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
PS, Today 7/22/08:
As a side comment to Boeing playing the US Job card on the KC-X, look what they dioing on the A-10 Rewing Contract:
Irony or farce: Boeing ships US defense jobs to South Korea? - The DEW Line
Maybe they talk out of both sides of their mouths.
I think large tanker can do what a medium tanker can do, not the other way round, and the USAF needs big boom offloads for it's strategic operations.
This article tells it all, bigger is better:
Why the Air Force Picked Northrop’s Tanker » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
PS, Today 7/22/08:
As a side comment to Boeing playing the US Job card on the KC-X, look what they dioing on the A-10 Rewing Contract:
Irony or farce: Boeing ships US defense jobs to South Korea? - The DEW Line
Maybe they talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Last edited by Lee Norberg; 22nd Jul 2008 at 21:07.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More credit for an aircraft's ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount
UPDATE 2-Pentagon revives tanker contest; bids due by Oct 1 | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday reopened a $35 billion refueling aircraft competition between Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), with sources saying aerial refueling was viewed as more important than survivability, airlift and operational utility.
The Defense Department last month said it would redo the competition for 179 new aerial tankers after government auditors found significant errors in the Air Force's handling of the last contest, which Northrop and its European subcontractor EADS EAD.PA> won in February.
On Wednesday, it gave the companies 98 pages of amendments and clarifications to the original request for proposals, addressing concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office when it sustained a protest by losing bidder Boeing.
In a briefing for lawmakers, Pentagon officials said the revamped competition would also give more credit for an aircraft's ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount, a decision that could favor the larger A330-based plane offered by the Northrop team, said two congressional aides.
"There is additional value to the government for the additional fuel offload amount above threshold," the revised document now reads.
Boeing had argued in its protest that the Air Force wrongly gave Northrop credit for exceeding the threshold requirement, even after assuring Boeing officials that no extra credit would be given. Now the military is stating its wishes more clearly.
The change "appears to justify a bigger aircraft with greater fuel offload capability," said an aide to Rep. Norman Dicks, a Washington state Democrat who has strongly backed Boeing. Continued...
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday reopened a $35 billion refueling aircraft competition between Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), with sources saying aerial refueling was viewed as more important than survivability, airlift and operational utility.
The Defense Department last month said it would redo the competition for 179 new aerial tankers after government auditors found significant errors in the Air Force's handling of the last contest, which Northrop and its European subcontractor EADS EAD.PA> won in February.
On Wednesday, it gave the companies 98 pages of amendments and clarifications to the original request for proposals, addressing concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office when it sustained a protest by losing bidder Boeing.
In a briefing for lawmakers, Pentagon officials said the revamped competition would also give more credit for an aircraft's ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount, a decision that could favor the larger A330-based plane offered by the Northrop team, said two congressional aides.
"There is additional value to the government for the additional fuel offload amount above threshold," the revised document now reads.
Boeing had argued in its protest that the Air Force wrongly gave Northrop credit for exceeding the threshold requirement, even after assuring Boeing officials that no extra credit would be given. Now the military is stating its wishes more clearly.
The change "appears to justify a bigger aircraft with greater fuel offload capability," said an aide to Rep. Norman Dicks, a Washington state Democrat who has strongly backed Boeing. Continued...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenhornet,
A false premise that a large tanker can do everything that a smaller one can’t.
The real world experience is that there are fields that can operate –135s that can’t handle the –10 from infrastructure point of view (PCN). The answer of moving to a further base becomes a no-go from a number (additional security personnel required in country, location, the ugly Americans telling the locals where we will go, etc.) factors to political factors not allowing sorties being flown from another country.
The additional costs of civil engineers, security, lost opportunity, political “face” etc. of not having a –135 sized tanker are huge but not very quantifiable.
Short version is the Boeing best suits the mission assigned to the USAF (and said they were on board with) while the Airbus is what the USAF wants to cover up other deficiencies in air transport and justify a larger (or less shrinkage) USAF personnel.
S/F, FOG
A false premise that a large tanker can do everything that a smaller one can’t.
The real world experience is that there are fields that can operate –135s that can’t handle the –10 from infrastructure point of view (PCN). The answer of moving to a further base becomes a no-go from a number (additional security personnel required in country, location, the ugly Americans telling the locals where we will go, etc.) factors to political factors not allowing sorties being flown from another country.
The additional costs of civil engineers, security, lost opportunity, political “face” etc. of not having a –135 sized tanker are huge but not very quantifiable.
Short version is the Boeing best suits the mission assigned to the USAF (and said they were on board with) while the Airbus is what the USAF wants to cover up other deficiencies in air transport and justify a larger (or less shrinkage) USAF personnel.
S/F, FOG
FOG,
You're talking bollocks.
If you have less than 10,000 ft balanced field length (as you'd find at unrepresentative tanker bases like Mildenhall and Fairford), you can't operate a KC-767 with its full load of 92 tonnes - you have to offload 16 tonnes.
You can operate a KC-330 with its full load of 111 tonnes from that runway.
So the bigger airplane can operate from smaller airfields.
It can sometimes be affected by smaller ramps, but who wants to cram 767s wing to wing for the enemy to mortar anyway?
And concrete is cheap.
You're talking bollocks.
If you have less than 10,000 ft balanced field length (as you'd find at unrepresentative tanker bases like Mildenhall and Fairford), you can't operate a KC-767 with its full load of 92 tonnes - you have to offload 16 tonnes.
You can operate a KC-330 with its full load of 111 tonnes from that runway.
So the bigger airplane can operate from smaller airfields.
It can sometimes be affected by smaller ramps, but who wants to cram 767s wing to wing for the enemy to mortar anyway?
And concrete is cheap.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Please get off the simplistic runway length BS for an asset that is supposed to be used for deployable use and not strat. That is deploying to operational locations for operations in a military sense all over the world and not just.
Concrete being cheap is a flippant, uninformed and marks one as a pure amateur. The concrete itself is cheap. What are the costs involved with tearing out the old surfaces and dealing with them? What are the costs in dealing with sub-strate improvement? Where are you getting the CE assets? The location and transport of the raw materials? What are the costs in terms of time to upgrade?
As a journalist you have little training little experience in actually taking core samples to evaluate runway strength, evaluate security measures required, etc. It is far simpler, faster, and thus cheaper in most cases to add AM2 matting to a runway vice dealing with PCN issues of runways, taxiways, and ramps.
As far as being susceptible to mortar you are kidding? The outlying fields away from built up areas that can be patrolled or the city? I’ll give you a hint in that there is lots of recent historical data.
FOG
Please get off the simplistic runway length BS for an asset that is supposed to be used for deployable use and not strat. That is deploying to operational locations for operations in a military sense all over the world and not just.
Concrete being cheap is a flippant, uninformed and marks one as a pure amateur. The concrete itself is cheap. What are the costs involved with tearing out the old surfaces and dealing with them? What are the costs in dealing with sub-strate improvement? Where are you getting the CE assets? The location and transport of the raw materials? What are the costs in terms of time to upgrade?
As a journalist you have little training little experience in actually taking core samples to evaluate runway strength, evaluate security measures required, etc. It is far simpler, faster, and thus cheaper in most cases to add AM2 matting to a runway vice dealing with PCN issues of runways, taxiways, and ramps.
As far as being susceptible to mortar you are kidding? The outlying fields away from built up areas that can be patrolled or the city? I’ll give you a hint in that there is lots of recent historical data.
FOG
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
AW&ST - 11 Aug 2008: Boeing Leaning Toward Not Re-bidding KC-X
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).
Multiple sources familiar with Boeing’s internal discussions say company officials are strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal as the company’s Integrated Defense Systems sector tries to respond to the draft RFP within the government’s speedy timeline. Comments are due this week.
The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement. A demand from Congress for a competition after the botched attempt to sole-source the work to Boeing in 2003 was what drove the KC-X competition and eventually led to the selection of the Northrop Grumman/EADS Airbus A330-200-based design in February. However, the Government Accountability Office found errors in the scoring of the bids during the last round and directed the government to amend its RFP.
After Northrop Grumman threatened a no-bid position in the last round, the Pentagon added items to the RFP that would take into account the attributes of its A330-200-based design, which was submitted jointly with EADS.
Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).
Multiple sources familiar with Boeing’s internal discussions say company officials are strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal as the company’s Integrated Defense Systems sector tries to respond to the draft RFP within the government’s speedy timeline. Comments are due this week.
The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement. A demand from Congress for a competition after the botched attempt to sole-source the work to Boeing in 2003 was what drove the KC-X competition and eventually led to the selection of the Northrop Grumman/EADS Airbus A330-200-based design in February. However, the Government Accountability Office found errors in the scoring of the bids during the last round and directed the government to amend its RFP.
After Northrop Grumman threatened a no-bid position in the last round, the Pentagon added items to the RFP that would take into account the attributes of its A330-200-based design, which was submitted jointly with EADS.
Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.
Fog,
Again, you're talking bollocks.
Runway length is more critical, more often, than parking space (the metric where the KC-767's much smaller wingspan actually counts, assuming that you're going to park 'em wingtip to wingtip).
The idea that the KC-330 imposes more of a load on runways and taxyways was not borne out by the RAF, Italian AMI or NATO studies into tanker basing - and if it were an issue, the 330 is easily available with an extra centreline bogie.
There are PLENTY of real world deployed tanker bases with runways that are too short for a KC-767 to operate from, fully laden (minor bases like Fairford, Brize and Mildenhall....) whereas the RAF did not find a SINGLE base that it wanted to operate from where pavement loadings prevented A330 operations. To my surprise, they didn't even find one where the wingspan was a game-stopper.
You're absolutely right that extending a runway is not cheap (and that's what you often need if you want a KC-767 to do a KC-45's job) - but extending parking ramps is - relatively speaking.
The KC-767 can NEVER take off with an A330 full load of gas. The worrying thing is that on real world tanker runways it can't take off with a much smaller KC-767 full load either.
Again, you're talking bollocks.
Runway length is more critical, more often, than parking space (the metric where the KC-767's much smaller wingspan actually counts, assuming that you're going to park 'em wingtip to wingtip).
The idea that the KC-330 imposes more of a load on runways and taxyways was not borne out by the RAF, Italian AMI or NATO studies into tanker basing - and if it were an issue, the 330 is easily available with an extra centreline bogie.
There are PLENTY of real world deployed tanker bases with runways that are too short for a KC-767 to operate from, fully laden (minor bases like Fairford, Brize and Mildenhall....) whereas the RAF did not find a SINGLE base that it wanted to operate from where pavement loadings prevented A330 operations. To my surprise, they didn't even find one where the wingspan was a game-stopper.
You're absolutely right that extending a runway is not cheap (and that's what you often need if you want a KC-767 to do a KC-45's job) - but extending parking ramps is - relatively speaking.
The KC-767 can NEVER take off with an A330 full load of gas. The worrying thing is that on real world tanker runways it can't take off with a much smaller KC-767 full load either.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East of Java
Age: 64
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOG..or pea souper by the look of the patronising 'logic'
The PCN/ACN issue is not an issue as they're already known for all airports the the RFP asked for - you don't have to muck about drilling samples and ground prep' for taxiway extensions ect, and there aren't many - if any- airports that the KC-767 can operate to that the KC-45 cant.
Even if for the few cases it was prohibative, the alternatives for diverting are far higher with the airbus than with the frankentanker. Take a look at the KC-10's operating parameters
The KC-30/45 take off with load performance is the critical issue - runway length, performance and operating flexibility are the criteria
as for mortars...no idea, it's not in the RFP
The PCN/ACN issue is not an issue as they're already known for all airports the the RFP asked for - you don't have to muck about drilling samples and ground prep' for taxiway extensions ect, and there aren't many - if any- airports that the KC-767 can operate to that the KC-45 cant.
Even if for the few cases it was prohibative, the alternatives for diverting are far higher with the airbus than with the frankentanker. Take a look at the KC-10's operating parameters
The KC-30/45 take off with load performance is the critical issue - runway length, performance and operating flexibility are the criteria
as for mortars...no idea, it's not in the RFP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that Boeing will deliberately fail to make a bid for the Tanker contract so that there is no competition, therefore the competition is void and they will then attempt to pinch it at their leisure?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flotsam,
Actually the mortars were brought about by another poster as part of the security piece, which can go into expeditionary deployment that the USAF has stated they are going to support. The USAF attitude of the USA or USMC giving up an extra Bn. of troops to protect an extra base hasn’t passed the smell test.
PCN/ACN are issues for quite a number of airports. I have actually measured more than a few airports that are/were considered for U.S. tanker ops using both -135 and -10 numbers. I do not consider 3 or something in the teens as an adequate number of sorties to be considered for basing. I do not have a CE, just a ME and just an USMC pilot thrown into the expeditionary airfield world where we have to consider real world factors in real places we want to go.
I am well aware of the errors in the data base. These errors are not just PCN/ACN but also often fuel storage/intake/transfer data.
Jacko,
This is not for the RAF. This is for the USAF to support the mission the USAF has signed up for in support of the rest of the DoD. Last I checked none of the bases you mentioned is in a geographical location to support theater expeditionary operations, but I am probably missing things. I have actually checked places like Africa, the Pacific, and a few others.
Extending runways is actually cheaper than and faster than dealing with PCN/CAN issues, especially if one uses AM2 matting to extend the over/under run areas. There is at least one runway the RAF was looking at in Africa that is listed as ok for KC-10 ops that is good for only a day or so worth of sorties, while having huge ramps the taxiway with clearance for any U.S. tanker is the center one obviously slowing both launch and recovery. I can think of two runways that the Airbus is a much better fit, length cannot be extended (practically) and very strong runways (though both need surface improvement as they are currently unimproved class C surfaces).
S/F, FOG
Actually the mortars were brought about by another poster as part of the security piece, which can go into expeditionary deployment that the USAF has stated they are going to support. The USAF attitude of the USA or USMC giving up an extra Bn. of troops to protect an extra base hasn’t passed the smell test.
PCN/ACN are issues for quite a number of airports. I have actually measured more than a few airports that are/were considered for U.S. tanker ops using both -135 and -10 numbers. I do not consider 3 or something in the teens as an adequate number of sorties to be considered for basing. I do not have a CE, just a ME and just an USMC pilot thrown into the expeditionary airfield world where we have to consider real world factors in real places we want to go.
I am well aware of the errors in the data base. These errors are not just PCN/ACN but also often fuel storage/intake/transfer data.
Jacko,
This is not for the RAF. This is for the USAF to support the mission the USAF has signed up for in support of the rest of the DoD. Last I checked none of the bases you mentioned is in a geographical location to support theater expeditionary operations, but I am probably missing things. I have actually checked places like Africa, the Pacific, and a few others.
Extending runways is actually cheaper than and faster than dealing with PCN/CAN issues, especially if one uses AM2 matting to extend the over/under run areas. There is at least one runway the RAF was looking at in Africa that is listed as ok for KC-10 ops that is good for only a day or so worth of sorties, while having huge ramps the taxiway with clearance for any U.S. tanker is the center one obviously slowing both launch and recovery. I can think of two runways that the Airbus is a much better fit, length cannot be extended (practically) and very strong runways (though both need surface improvement as they are currently unimproved class C surfaces).
S/F, FOG
kC-X is indeed intended to support USAF expeditionary ops in the post Cold War world. This is "the mission the USAF has signed up for in support of the rest of the DoD." Not quite the same thing as flying exactly the same mission as the -135 did.
Not supporting Cold War ops with single tankers supporting single Buffs, for example, and not primarily operating from Stateside ANG bases where fitting into existing hangars is the most important factor.
Being able to operate from the maximum number of tanker FOLs is therefore of pivotal importance (giving the flexibility to base further forward, if required, or further back, if necessary). The ability to take as much fuel as possible to a towline and to be able to stay on station for as long as necessary is also useful, as is the ability to support a deployment by carrying standard pallets side-by-side (something the 'not-quite-widebody' 767 can't do).
And that's why the USAF selected the more capable tanker airplane, which also happens to be the bigger one.
Not supporting Cold War ops with single tankers supporting single Buffs, for example, and not primarily operating from Stateside ANG bases where fitting into existing hangars is the most important factor.
Being able to operate from the maximum number of tanker FOLs is therefore of pivotal importance (giving the flexibility to base further forward, if required, or further back, if necessary). The ability to take as much fuel as possible to a towline and to be able to stay on station for as long as necessary is also useful, as is the ability to support a deployment by carrying standard pallets side-by-side (something the 'not-quite-widebody' 767 can't do).
And that's why the USAF selected the more capable tanker airplane, which also happens to be the bigger one.
The USAF attitude of the USA or USMC giving up an extra Bn. of troops to protect an extra base hasn’t passed the smell test.
And concrete is cheap.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A310 Mrtt ???
Saintsman - The only thing to stop the A310 MRTT being offered as a competitor in this round is that it's out of production - which the 767 will be if Boeing don't get at least something ...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC NG threatened to 'not bid' in a previous round of this fiasco, and then the RFP was changed. A cynic might suggest that NG's suggestion of not bidding was made to force such a change to the RFP. Now there is a rumor that Boeing might also threaten to 'not bid' as the RFP, in Boeing's opinion, now favors NG. Again, a cynic might suggest that Boeing might be trying the same tactic that NG might have, allegedly, tried last time round.
Unfortunately, IMHO, it's going to take some highly paid help with substantial cojonas to make the decision to buy the best jet for the job, and stick with it this time, regardless of the politics, backhanders and 'but what if' scenarios that might happen once in every million missions.
Which jet is best fot the job? We can argue that all day long, and I'm sure we will, but it's the Airbus product; some of us just need to stop hating on the French and deal with it.
Unfortunately, IMHO, it's going to take some highly paid help with substantial cojonas to make the decision to buy the best jet for the job, and stick with it this time, regardless of the politics, backhanders and 'but what if' scenarios that might happen once in every million missions.
Which jet is best fot the job? We can argue that all day long, and I'm sure we will, but it's the Airbus product; some of us just need to stop hating on the French and deal with it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Boeing Mulls Leaving Air Force Tanker Rebidding
WASHINGTON - U.S. aerospace giant Boeing said Friday it may exit the rebidding for a massive contract to build U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers unless the Pentagon allows more time to rework its proposal.
The Department of Defense (DoD) was forced in June to rebid the $35 billion contract after congressional auditors found flaws in the Air Force's decision to award it to Northrop Grumman and its European partner, EADS.
Boeing's loss of the contest in February to rival Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, parent of Airbus, raised protectionist hackles in the U.S. Congress and shocked the market. Boeing has been the sole supplier of the refueling tankers. The Pentagon contract is for 179 aircraft, the initial phase of a fleet replacement project worth about $100 billion over the next 30 years. A Boeing withdrawal from the rebidding would leave the lucrative contract without competition.
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck told AFP that his company needs six months to present a new bid because the company thinks the new requirements now call for a plane that can carry more fuel than the original proposal.
"We have asked the Pentagon to allow a six-month timetable for submittal of proposals in this competition," he said in a phone interview. "The reason we're asking for that is since the issuance of the draft request for proposal two weeks ago, as we've engaged in our discussions with the Pentagon, and .... they're asking for a different kind of airplane than they asked for in the first competition." Beck added, "If we don't get the sufficient time to prepare that proposal, there's really little option for us other than to no-bid in this competition."
The politically charged battle over the contract to build 179 tankers - one of the largest defense contracts in recent years - pits the KC-45, a militarized version of Airbus's 330, and the KC-767, a new version of the Boeing 767. The Government Accountability Office in June upheld Boeing's challenge of the Air Force decision, saying it found "significant errors" in the evaluation of the two bids. The Air Force decided in February it preferred Northrop's KC-45 entry, a militarized version of the Airbus 330, because it was larger and could carry more fuel and cargo than Boeing's KC-767, a modified version of the Boeing 767.
The Boeing spokesman said Aug. 22 that after three meetings between Boeing and Pentagon officials, the company has concluded the new bid will require a plane capable of carrying more fuel than the plane it originally offered. "This is a new competition. Make no mistake about that. The requirements have changed," Beck said.
The DoD has said it will release the final request for proposals next week.
In response to a question about Boeing's options if the Pentagon does not allow extra time, he said: "One of the options we would have is to protest the (bidding process)."......
WASHINGTON - U.S. aerospace giant Boeing said Friday it may exit the rebidding for a massive contract to build U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers unless the Pentagon allows more time to rework its proposal.
The Department of Defense (DoD) was forced in June to rebid the $35 billion contract after congressional auditors found flaws in the Air Force's decision to award it to Northrop Grumman and its European partner, EADS.
Boeing's loss of the contest in February to rival Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, parent of Airbus, raised protectionist hackles in the U.S. Congress and shocked the market. Boeing has been the sole supplier of the refueling tankers. The Pentagon contract is for 179 aircraft, the initial phase of a fleet replacement project worth about $100 billion over the next 30 years. A Boeing withdrawal from the rebidding would leave the lucrative contract without competition.
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck told AFP that his company needs six months to present a new bid because the company thinks the new requirements now call for a plane that can carry more fuel than the original proposal.
"We have asked the Pentagon to allow a six-month timetable for submittal of proposals in this competition," he said in a phone interview. "The reason we're asking for that is since the issuance of the draft request for proposal two weeks ago, as we've engaged in our discussions with the Pentagon, and .... they're asking for a different kind of airplane than they asked for in the first competition." Beck added, "If we don't get the sufficient time to prepare that proposal, there's really little option for us other than to no-bid in this competition."
The politically charged battle over the contract to build 179 tankers - one of the largest defense contracts in recent years - pits the KC-45, a militarized version of Airbus's 330, and the KC-767, a new version of the Boeing 767. The Government Accountability Office in June upheld Boeing's challenge of the Air Force decision, saying it found "significant errors" in the evaluation of the two bids. The Air Force decided in February it preferred Northrop's KC-45 entry, a militarized version of the Airbus 330, because it was larger and could carry more fuel and cargo than Boeing's KC-767, a modified version of the Boeing 767.
The Boeing spokesman said Aug. 22 that after three meetings between Boeing and Pentagon officials, the company has concluded the new bid will require a plane capable of carrying more fuel than the plane it originally offered. "This is a new competition. Make no mistake about that. The requirements have changed," Beck said.
The DoD has said it will release the final request for proposals next week.
In response to a question about Boeing's options if the Pentagon does not allow extra time, he said: "One of the options we would have is to protest the (bidding process)."......
So,
1. Get your hands burned by colluding over a military contract.
2. Lose the revised competition because your submission isn't good enough.
3. Do a Violet-Elizabeth over the results of the competition.
4. Persuade the politicos that the result should be put on hold.
..and now 5. Having worked out that the 767 still isn't good enough, squeal for another delay to an already delayed programme, annoying your potential customer in the process.
Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt...............
1. Get your hands burned by colluding over a military contract.
2. Lose the revised competition because your submission isn't good enough.
3. Do a Violet-Elizabeth over the results of the competition.
4. Persuade the politicos that the result should be put on hold.
..and now 5. Having worked out that the 767 still isn't good enough, squeal for another delay to an already delayed programme, annoying your potential customer in the process.
Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt...............
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Sep 2008 at 13:00.