Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A new competition will give EADS more time to develop an off the shelf product for the USAF."
You need money for that and the black holes of A400M, A350 and A380 are sucking EADS dry.
You need money for that and the black holes of A400M, A350 and A380 are sucking EADS dry.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Seattlepi: Aerospace Notebook: How about splitting the tanker award?
With the Air Force tanker competition in limbo until after a new president and his administration takes over in January, a proposal by a powerful member of Congress that the Pentagon buy tankers from both The Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. has received a tentative nod from an unlikely corner.
"If they go to a dual award, which would mean not splitting the award but actually ordering one a month from each company, obviously we would look at that and be supportive of whatever the government wants to do," Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said Tuesday in an interview with Reuters. "Anything that gets good tankers to our airmen fast is probably a good thing," he added.
Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House defense appropriations subcommittee, has proposed buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop.
Boeing said it is not taking a position on a dual-buy option. "We look forward to a reopening of the competition to identify the right tanker to modernize its fleet of medium-sized tankers," a Boeing spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.
Although a split buy and a dual buy may not be the same thing, either would probably mean added costs to the Air Force because it would have to support different planes. And that's something that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said is not acceptable. Gates recently said he would recommend a presidential veto of any legislation out of Congress to split the tanker buy. Of course, Gates may not be the defense secretary for long once John McCain or Barack Obama becomes president in January.
The dual-buy option is getting more attention because of Murtha, whose appropriations subcommittee chairmanship gives him a lot of power over military spending.
Last week, Murtha disclosed that he had inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 defense appropriations bill that directs the Pentagon to study the feasibility of buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop. Murtha said he wants to know, among other things, what the increased costs might be. But a dual buy is the only way to get tankers to the Air Force anytime soon, Murtha said, given that another protest is likely by the loser of the next competition, which will further delay the tanker acquisition process.
"What we said was 'Look at a dual buy,' " Murtha said at a news conference. "Now, Boeing doesn't like that and I don't know if Northrop likes that. The Defense Department definitely doesn't like that. But let me tell you something, we are not going to have tankers if we don't do that, I'm convinced."
Because the Airbus A330-based tanker offered by Northrop and its partner, EADS, the parent of Airbus, is ready to enter production, and Boeing's 767-based tanker for the Air Force is not, a dual buy likely would mean that Northrop would supply most of the early tankers to the Air Force, depending on when the first deliveries were scheduled.
The Air Force wants 179 tankers as it seeks to eventually replace its aging fleet of some 500 Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers.
Northrop and EADS won the hotly disputed tanker competition earlier this year, but Boeing appealed, and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the Air Force made serious mistakes and ordered a rebidding. But Boeing threatened to withdraw from the competition if it did not have at least six months to offer a bigger tanker to meet new requirements set by the Pentagon, which hoped to award a tanker contract by the end of the year. So earlier this month Gates announced that the much-delayed tanker decision will be left to the next administration because there is not enough time while George Bush is president to conduct a fair competition.
Meanwhile, Boeing is taking the next few months to evaluate which of its jets might have the best shot at winning the $35 billion Air Force tanker competition. Boeing's 767-200 tanker that it offered is considerably smaller than the A330.
The possibility of a dual buy raises many questions, not the least of which is, would the Pentagon, should it agree to buy two different planes, still press ahead with a new tanker competition? Would Congress go along with a dual buy if it meant the tanker deal would cost more?
Regardless of the talk about a dual buy, the presidential race is likely to shape the tanker outcome. If Obama wins, he is seen as being more supportive of the Pentagon buying Boeing's plane.
Even though Northrop's Sugar said in the Reuters interview he could support buying tankers from both companies, if that's what the new administration wants, he also said Northrop is prepared to compete against Boeing again ... and again ... and again ... for the tanker contract. "We are going to do that as many times as it takes," he was quoted as saying.
With the Air Force tanker competition in limbo until after a new president and his administration takes over in January, a proposal by a powerful member of Congress that the Pentagon buy tankers from both The Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. has received a tentative nod from an unlikely corner.
"If they go to a dual award, which would mean not splitting the award but actually ordering one a month from each company, obviously we would look at that and be supportive of whatever the government wants to do," Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said Tuesday in an interview with Reuters. "Anything that gets good tankers to our airmen fast is probably a good thing," he added.
Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House defense appropriations subcommittee, has proposed buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop.
Boeing said it is not taking a position on a dual-buy option. "We look forward to a reopening of the competition to identify the right tanker to modernize its fleet of medium-sized tankers," a Boeing spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.
Although a split buy and a dual buy may not be the same thing, either would probably mean added costs to the Air Force because it would have to support different planes. And that's something that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said is not acceptable. Gates recently said he would recommend a presidential veto of any legislation out of Congress to split the tanker buy. Of course, Gates may not be the defense secretary for long once John McCain or Barack Obama becomes president in January.
The dual-buy option is getting more attention because of Murtha, whose appropriations subcommittee chairmanship gives him a lot of power over military spending.
Last week, Murtha disclosed that he had inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 defense appropriations bill that directs the Pentagon to study the feasibility of buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop. Murtha said he wants to know, among other things, what the increased costs might be. But a dual buy is the only way to get tankers to the Air Force anytime soon, Murtha said, given that another protest is likely by the loser of the next competition, which will further delay the tanker acquisition process.
"What we said was 'Look at a dual buy,' " Murtha said at a news conference. "Now, Boeing doesn't like that and I don't know if Northrop likes that. The Defense Department definitely doesn't like that. But let me tell you something, we are not going to have tankers if we don't do that, I'm convinced."
Because the Airbus A330-based tanker offered by Northrop and its partner, EADS, the parent of Airbus, is ready to enter production, and Boeing's 767-based tanker for the Air Force is not, a dual buy likely would mean that Northrop would supply most of the early tankers to the Air Force, depending on when the first deliveries were scheduled.
The Air Force wants 179 tankers as it seeks to eventually replace its aging fleet of some 500 Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers.
Northrop and EADS won the hotly disputed tanker competition earlier this year, but Boeing appealed, and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the Air Force made serious mistakes and ordered a rebidding. But Boeing threatened to withdraw from the competition if it did not have at least six months to offer a bigger tanker to meet new requirements set by the Pentagon, which hoped to award a tanker contract by the end of the year. So earlier this month Gates announced that the much-delayed tanker decision will be left to the next administration because there is not enough time while George Bush is president to conduct a fair competition.
Meanwhile, Boeing is taking the next few months to evaluate which of its jets might have the best shot at winning the $35 billion Air Force tanker competition. Boeing's 767-200 tanker that it offered is considerably smaller than the A330.
The possibility of a dual buy raises many questions, not the least of which is, would the Pentagon, should it agree to buy two different planes, still press ahead with a new tanker competition? Would Congress go along with a dual buy if it meant the tanker deal would cost more?
Regardless of the talk about a dual buy, the presidential race is likely to shape the tanker outcome. If Obama wins, he is seen as being more supportive of the Pentagon buying Boeing's plane.
Even though Northrop's Sugar said in the Reuters interview he could support buying tankers from both companies, if that's what the new administration wants, he also said Northrop is prepared to compete against Boeing again ... and again ... and again ... for the tanker contract. "We are going to do that as many times as it takes," he was quoted as saying.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Murtha Wants Speedy Mixed Air Force Tanker Buy
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told a conference in Washington on March 12 that he is in talks with House and Senate Appropriations panel leaders to increase supplemental defense funding to finally end the decade-long KC-135 replacement effort.
His idea, floated during a conference at the National Press Club sponsored by Aviation Week and McAleese & Associates, is to inflate the $67 billion supplemental request the Obama administration will send to Congress in coming weeks with funds tagged for the competition and "development work" on each team's planes. By putting the funds in the second 2009 supplemental, the Air Force would "get the planes sooner" than if appropriators waited to put the monies in the 2010 defense budget, due to Congress late in April.
Murtha's plan, if included in the final version of the supplemental, would add a new twist to the tanker saga by requiring the Air Force to buy some number of both planes. Boeing and Northrop-EADS still would compete under the Murtha plan, but not for the entire 179-plane, $35 billion contract. Whichever team the service deems "put forward the best proposal would get more" of the 179-plane pie, he said, and the other team would get a lesser number. That differs from talk of a "split buy," under which the Air Force would buy an equal number from each team.
Senior Air Force and Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, oppose buying both planes under the KC-135 replacement program because they say sustainment and maintenance costs would be too high.
Asked by Defense News whether a mixed buy would keep the team awarded fewer KC-X tankers from protesting the decision, a move that could again delay the program by years, Murtha said lawmakers were still working through details of his plan. "We hope we can work it out," Murtha said.
Asked whether a mixed or split buy would satisfy Boeing brass, Murtha grinned and replied: "Boeing will do what we ask them to do. They will be happy to get a tanker. ... Boeing has put a lot of money into this."
His comments came almost 24 hours after Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, House Armed Services air and land subcommittee chairman, told the same conference he supports splitting the contract between Boeing and Northrop-EADS. Abercrombie told reporters that because the Boeing and Northrop-EADS planes have different attributes, the Air Force could simply operate them in different regions of the globe.
Murtha and Abercrombie shot down a March 10 CQ Politics article that the White House Office of Management and Budget had ordered the Pentagon to delay the KC-X competition by five years to cut costs as part of the soon-to-conclude 2010 defense budget deliberations. "That is just not true," a stern-sounding Murtha told the conference.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told a conference in Washington on March 12 that he is in talks with House and Senate Appropriations panel leaders to increase supplemental defense funding to finally end the decade-long KC-135 replacement effort.
His idea, floated during a conference at the National Press Club sponsored by Aviation Week and McAleese & Associates, is to inflate the $67 billion supplemental request the Obama administration will send to Congress in coming weeks with funds tagged for the competition and "development work" on each team's planes. By putting the funds in the second 2009 supplemental, the Air Force would "get the planes sooner" than if appropriators waited to put the monies in the 2010 defense budget, due to Congress late in April.
Murtha's plan, if included in the final version of the supplemental, would add a new twist to the tanker saga by requiring the Air Force to buy some number of both planes. Boeing and Northrop-EADS still would compete under the Murtha plan, but not for the entire 179-plane, $35 billion contract. Whichever team the service deems "put forward the best proposal would get more" of the 179-plane pie, he said, and the other team would get a lesser number. That differs from talk of a "split buy," under which the Air Force would buy an equal number from each team.
Senior Air Force and Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, oppose buying both planes under the KC-135 replacement program because they say sustainment and maintenance costs would be too high.
Asked by Defense News whether a mixed buy would keep the team awarded fewer KC-X tankers from protesting the decision, a move that could again delay the program by years, Murtha said lawmakers were still working through details of his plan. "We hope we can work it out," Murtha said.
Asked whether a mixed or split buy would satisfy Boeing brass, Murtha grinned and replied: "Boeing will do what we ask them to do. They will be happy to get a tanker. ... Boeing has put a lot of money into this."
His comments came almost 24 hours after Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, House Armed Services air and land subcommittee chairman, told the same conference he supports splitting the contract between Boeing and Northrop-EADS. Abercrombie told reporters that because the Boeing and Northrop-EADS planes have different attributes, the Air Force could simply operate them in different regions of the globe.
Murtha and Abercrombie shot down a March 10 CQ Politics article that the White House Office of Management and Budget had ordered the Pentagon to delay the KC-X competition by five years to cut costs as part of the soon-to-conclude 2010 defense budget deliberations. "That is just not true," a stern-sounding Murtha told the conference.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Defense News: Boeing Pitches 777 Tanker; Labels New USAF Bid 7A7
PARIS - Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.
Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) president and CEO Jim Albaugh said he expected to see a request for proposals (RFP) this summer for the new U.S. Air Force tanker competition. "I expect it will not have nearly as many requirements as the last one," he said.
Boeing lost out on the last hotly competed tanker contest to a joint bid by Northrop Grumman and EADS that was based on the Airbus A330 airframe. But Boeing protested that contest, and the following Government Accountability Office report lambasted the Air Force for how it ran the contest. As a result, the order was cancelled and a new competition is being run between the rival manufacturers.
Albaugh said that Boeing would decide which aircraft to bid once it had seen the RFP. Meanwhile, it has renamed its tanker program the KC-7A7. Asked what the 'A' stood for, he was vague, but said that if the media wanted to pick a word, they could use "advanced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
However, when this was discussed as an option, rather than the KC-767, for the KC-45 contract; the following points were made.
.....But there are serious issues for Boeing should it offer the 777 as a tanker. Its 777 production line in Everett is flush with commercial orders. Where could it find production slots to build 179 tankers for the Air Force? On the other hand, the 767 commercial program is winding down because that plane is being replaced by the 787.
Also, Boeing faces a time problem in developing either the 777 or the 767-400 as tankers. But it has already developed the 767-200 as a tanker for Italy and Japan, even though those planes are late. Northrop has repeatedly made the case in ads touting its plane over Boeing's 767-200 that the A330-200 tanker is already flying – and that the advanced 767-200 tanker for the Air Force is still a "paper" plane. The version of the 767-200 for the Air Force would be different than the eight tankers built for Italy and Japan.
Boeing said in 2006 that it would take about three years to modify the 777 into a tanker......
So, what, if anything has changed? And is the USAF in a position to accept a further 3-4 year delay in the programme?
PARIS - Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.
Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) president and CEO Jim Albaugh said he expected to see a request for proposals (RFP) this summer for the new U.S. Air Force tanker competition. "I expect it will not have nearly as many requirements as the last one," he said.
Boeing lost out on the last hotly competed tanker contest to a joint bid by Northrop Grumman and EADS that was based on the Airbus A330 airframe. But Boeing protested that contest, and the following Government Accountability Office report lambasted the Air Force for how it ran the contest. As a result, the order was cancelled and a new competition is being run between the rival manufacturers.
Albaugh said that Boeing would decide which aircraft to bid once it had seen the RFP. Meanwhile, it has renamed its tanker program the KC-7A7. Asked what the 'A' stood for, he was vague, but said that if the media wanted to pick a word, they could use "advanced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
However, when this was discussed as an option, rather than the KC-767, for the KC-45 contract; the following points were made.
.....But there are serious issues for Boeing should it offer the 777 as a tanker. Its 777 production line in Everett is flush with commercial orders. Where could it find production slots to build 179 tankers for the Air Force? On the other hand, the 767 commercial program is winding down because that plane is being replaced by the 787.
Also, Boeing faces a time problem in developing either the 777 or the 767-400 as tankers. But it has already developed the 767-200 as a tanker for Italy and Japan, even though those planes are late. Northrop has repeatedly made the case in ads touting its plane over Boeing's 767-200 that the A330-200 tanker is already flying – and that the advanced 767-200 tanker for the Air Force is still a "paper" plane. The version of the 767-200 for the Air Force would be different than the eight tankers built for Italy and Japan.
Boeing said in 2006 that it would take about three years to modify the 777 into a tanker......
So, what, if anything has changed? And is the USAF in a position to accept a further 3-4 year delay in the programme?
Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.
So, Boeing are saying that they can't identify which of their aircraft might better meet the specification? That's one reason why Airbus lost to the 767 for the Italian Air Force - the customer was expected to choose which of the proposed Airbus solutions would meet the specification. To which the customer repsonded "Well, if they haven't bothered to identify the better solution, they obviously aren't taking us seriously...."
3 years to develop a 777 tanker? Who would ever believe that, given that Boeing still hasn't flown a KC-767A, only warmed-over 767-200s for the JSDF and, perhaps one day, the Italian AF. And as for the 7-late-7 airliner...
And what does the 'A' stand for in 'KC-7A7? ARSE!! The Boeing KC-7arse7!
Meanwhile the A330MRTT continues to develop well for both the KC-30A and FSTA programmes (the first 'FSTA' flew last week) and the A310MRTT is in service with both customers....
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, they haven't received the new RFP yet
Might explain some of their unknowns relative to which aircraft to use.
If the USAF uses similar a similar L&M as last time then the 777 makes sense. If the USAF learns from their numerous errors, perhaps the original 767 would be a better proposal.
I wouldn't hold my breath if the same mid-level managers are still part of the source selection team ...
If the USAF uses similar a similar L&M as last time then the 777 makes sense. If the USAF learns from their numerous errors, perhaps the original 767 would be a better proposal.
I wouldn't hold my breath if the same mid-level managers are still part of the source selection team ...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Africa
Age: 55
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and
It looks like someone find peace in this KC767 drama:
Lawmakers claim Boeing victory in ruling - TheHill.com
Lawmakers claim Boeing victory in ruling - TheHill.com
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Africa
Age: 55
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and continue
Boeing are only making such a noise about this WTO issue because their product is manifestly inferior to the A330 and cannot sell itself on its own merit alone.
Getting rather long in the tooth now, the old 767.
Getting rather long in the tooth now, the old 767.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Africa
Age: 55
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep
Beagle
you are probably right, but reading the KC30 MRTT thread they don't look happy either! Problem here and there, late delivery and so on!
So what is going on in the AAR world?
It looks like nobody is really interested in solving the problems!
Report: Defense expert favors split tanker buy
you are probably right, but reading the KC30 MRTT thread they don't look happy either! Problem here and there, late delivery and so on!
So what is going on in the AAR world?
It looks like nobody is really interested in solving the problems!
Report: Defense expert favors split tanker buy
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
SeattlePi: Air Force reportedly won't consider WTO ruling in tanker bid
The U.S. Air Force will not factor a recent World Trade Organization ruling into its bid process for new aerial refueling tankers, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Monday, according to a Reuters report.
Politicians from states, such as Washington, with a large Boeing presence have said the Pentagon should penalize a Northrop-EADS tanker bid based on this month's WTO interim ruling that European governments illegally aided Airbus, an EADS subsidiary.
But Donley noted that the ruling was preliminary and that a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing was still pending. These are among the points that EADS, Northrop and its congressional allies have been making.
The U.S. Air Force will not factor a recent World Trade Organization ruling into its bid process for new aerial refueling tankers, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Monday, according to a Reuters report.
Politicians from states, such as Washington, with a large Boeing presence have said the Pentagon should penalize a Northrop-EADS tanker bid based on this month's WTO interim ruling that European governments illegally aided Airbus, an EADS subsidiary.
But Donley noted that the ruling was preliminary and that a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing was still pending. These are among the points that EADS, Northrop and its congressional allies have been making.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Times change" said the Roman
"...and we are changed with them", he finished.
Economic prognosticators are saying that there are huge cancellations pending for the aircraft makers as the downturn goes on biting. So the crowded order books for both will perhaps be about to look desperately empty (again ... "it's one of them cycle things, yer know" ...). So the A330 won't necessarily be facing off against the 767 which is already as good as out of production, but the 777 which could be in dire need of firm orders from a friendly government.
Expect loud acrimony about the WTO "decision" from both sides of the "pond" and not a cool head to talk facts - Europe's way of financing Airbus projects in the past, and in the future, will be given the smoke & mirrors treatment, while few in Europe will be as strong about the shifty ways of the American industry and its very strong desire to be Master of the World ...
That said, both Boeing and Airbus may feel in private, a need to pull their punches, as in a while they may need WTO backing to make life difficult for arising competition from Brazil and China, as well as, perhaps, Russia. Now that will be a cat-fight to end all cat-fights - fine for old war-horses like me who scent the smoke of battles to come ...
"Tempora mutantur" indeed.
Economic prognosticators are saying that there are huge cancellations pending for the aircraft makers as the downturn goes on biting. So the crowded order books for both will perhaps be about to look desperately empty (again ... "it's one of them cycle things, yer know" ...). So the A330 won't necessarily be facing off against the 767 which is already as good as out of production, but the 777 which could be in dire need of firm orders from a friendly government.
Expect loud acrimony about the WTO "decision" from both sides of the "pond" and not a cool head to talk facts - Europe's way of financing Airbus projects in the past, and in the future, will be given the smoke & mirrors treatment, while few in Europe will be as strong about the shifty ways of the American industry and its very strong desire to be Master of the World ...
That said, both Boeing and Airbus may feel in private, a need to pull their punches, as in a while they may need WTO backing to make life difficult for arising competition from Brazil and China, as well as, perhaps, Russia. Now that will be a cat-fight to end all cat-fights - fine for old war-horses like me who scent the smoke of battles to come ...
"Tempora mutantur" indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Africa
Age: 55
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IDS vs EADS or IDS+EADS
Why they take so long to deliver planes?
A330 is already flying for more then 15 years and the B767 is even worse (more then 25)? Is that the KC version of the civilian platform is a complete different airplane? If that's so, why being worried about the facing off the civilian plane since the KC (military) version will have his own dedicated time line, maintenance cycle and spare parts (especially if we are dealing with big organizations like USAF, RAF, RAAF, US Navy)?
As I said it looks like nobody is really willing to solve problems but to show how good they are using words instead! WTF
A330 is already flying for more then 15 years and the B767 is even worse (more then 25)? Is that the KC version of the civilian platform is a complete different airplane? If that's so, why being worried about the facing off the civilian plane since the KC (military) version will have his own dedicated time line, maintenance cycle and spare parts (especially if we are dealing with big organizations like USAF, RAF, RAAF, US Navy)?
As I said it looks like nobody is really willing to solve problems but to show how good they are using words instead! WTF
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget AF447 (recent A330 crash)
Let's not forget the rather recent Air France Fl 447 crash in the Atlantic Ocean... many unanswered questions related to instrumentation (pitots), air data computers, too much automation, possible pilot error (flying into known CB), or combination of contributing factors that negatively affected the flight that dark, stormy night.
The unknown contributing factors should certainly be considered with respect to the tanker competition (as they relate to the airframe anyway). At the very least, delay the decision until the final report is published.
Too bad that the Pentagon and AF acquisition officers won't even consider a short-term alternative...
DC-10 conversion to KC-10 utilizing mothballed and/or retired DC-10 aircraft. Heckuva lot cheaper than buying new, and the AF has experience with the KC-10 already. Probably pick up 180 or more fully retrofitted (and refitted with latest avionics, engines, etc.,) for less than $30 million each for a total of $5.4 billion.
The unknown contributing factors should certainly be considered with respect to the tanker competition (as they relate to the airframe anyway). At the very least, delay the decision until the final report is published.
Too bad that the Pentagon and AF acquisition officers won't even consider a short-term alternative...
DC-10 conversion to KC-10 utilizing mothballed and/or retired DC-10 aircraft. Heckuva lot cheaper than buying new, and the AF has experience with the KC-10 already. Probably pick up 180 or more fully retrofitted (and refitted with latest avionics, engines, etc.,) for less than $30 million each for a total of $5.4 billion.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Famous Last Words.......
Schwartz Promises 'Foolproof' Tanker Solicitation
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz vowed Sept. 15 the draft solicitation the Pentagon will release this month seeking bids for a multibillion-dollar tanker aircraft contract will be "foolproof."
Air Force and industry officials during the first two days of the conference have thrown around various timetables for when the Defense Department will release a draft version of a request for proposals. Those vary from next week to the end of this month.
Boeing and a team of EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to again compete for the contract.
As the crescendo for the service's latest try at replacing its aging KC-135 tankers grows, Schwartz was asked about rumors in defense circles that protests could be filed even before bids are submitted if the competitors feel shortchanged by the coming solicitations.
Schwartz asked with a grin: "Do you think we'd put an RfP on the street that isn't foolproof?"
Schwartz Promises 'Foolproof' Tanker Solicitation
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz vowed Sept. 15 the draft solicitation the Pentagon will release this month seeking bids for a multibillion-dollar tanker aircraft contract will be "foolproof."
Air Force and industry officials during the first two days of the conference have thrown around various timetables for when the Defense Department will release a draft version of a request for proposals. Those vary from next week to the end of this month.
Boeing and a team of EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to again compete for the contract.
As the crescendo for the service's latest try at replacing its aging KC-135 tankers grows, Schwartz was asked about rumors in defense circles that protests could be filed even before bids are submitted if the competitors feel shortchanged by the coming solicitations.
Schwartz asked with a grin: "Do you think we'd put an RfP on the street that isn't foolproof?"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hants
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile the UAE have theirs sorted,
UAE air force A330 tankers to have Etihad passenger cabin
UAE air force A330 tankers to have Etihad passenger cabin
Whereas the dismal KC 7-arse-7 doesn't even have windows... Presumably they do intend to give their self-loading freight something to sit on though?
Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.
Presumably they do intend to give their self-loading freight something to sit on though?Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always get excited when this thread bounces back to the top - that there might finally have been a final decision.
RFP to be released this coming Thursday (1 Oct 09) I believe?
RFP to be released this coming Thursday (1 Oct 09) I believe?