KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
EADS North America Launches Website Featuring the Only KC-X Tanker Entrant Flying Today
ARLINGTON, VA -- 04/23/10 -- EADS North America has launched www.kc-45now.com, a new website detailing why the American-made KC-45 aerial refueler is the clear choice to meet the U.S. Air Force's 21st Century tanker requirements. The new site features video and photography of the KC-45 tanker in flight conducting refueling operations, as well as facts and information about the aerial refueling system.
EADS North America announced this week it will offer its KC-45 for the Air Force's tanker modernization competition. The KC-45 is the only tanker in the competition that is in production and flying today. If selected by the Air Force, the KC-45 will be built at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, and will be supported by more than 200 suppliers across the country. The facility also will build commercial freighters, creating or supporting tens of thousands of American jobs.
EADS North America's KC-45 is the U.S. military version of EADS' proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), which has been selected over Boeing tankers in five consecutive head-to-head competitions. To date, 28 of these aircraft have been ordered by U.S. allies around the world. The A330 MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft -- from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS -- using the same proven refueling systems offered on the KC-45. The new web site, KC45now.com, includes video and photos of those refueling operations, as well as a virtual tour of the cockpit.
Pentagon denies easing security for EADS tanker bid
WASHINGTON, April 23 - The U.S. Defense Department rejected on Friday any suggestion that it had eased security so that Europe's EADS could go head-to-head against Boeing Co for a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-refueling plane contract. The department "is not waiving or relaxing security requirements in the RFP (request for proposal)," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "The allegation that we did this to favor EADS is absurd."..............
ARLINGTON, VA -- 04/23/10 -- EADS North America has launched www.kc-45now.com, a new website detailing why the American-made KC-45 aerial refueler is the clear choice to meet the U.S. Air Force's 21st Century tanker requirements. The new site features video and photography of the KC-45 tanker in flight conducting refueling operations, as well as facts and information about the aerial refueling system.
EADS North America announced this week it will offer its KC-45 for the Air Force's tanker modernization competition. The KC-45 is the only tanker in the competition that is in production and flying today. If selected by the Air Force, the KC-45 will be built at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, and will be supported by more than 200 suppliers across the country. The facility also will build commercial freighters, creating or supporting tens of thousands of American jobs.
EADS North America's KC-45 is the U.S. military version of EADS' proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), which has been selected over Boeing tankers in five consecutive head-to-head competitions. To date, 28 of these aircraft have been ordered by U.S. allies around the world. The A330 MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft -- from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS -- using the same proven refueling systems offered on the KC-45. The new web site, KC45now.com, includes video and photos of those refueling operations, as well as a virtual tour of the cockpit.
Pentagon denies easing security for EADS tanker bid
WASHINGTON, April 23 - The U.S. Defense Department rejected on Friday any suggestion that it had eased security so that Europe's EADS could go head-to-head against Boeing Co for a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-refueling plane contract. The department "is not waiving or relaxing security requirements in the RFP (request for proposal)," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "The allegation that we did this to favor EADS is absurd."..............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
My General's bigger than your General...... 
Air Force leaders in KC-X bid effort
WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- A former U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker pilot has joined one of the two companies competing for a government contract to replace the fleet, officials said.
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte is, as of Friday, on the board of directors at EADS North America, one of the companies competing for a $35 billion contract to replace the aging KC-135 fleet, Defense News reports. Lichte is a former KC-135 pilot and repeatedly called for a replacement for the KC-135 when he served as the head of the U.S. Air Mobility Command from September 2007 until November 2009.
Ralph Crosby, the chairman of EADS North America, said Lichte's military experience made him a valuable addition to the board of directors.
"General Lichte's leadership experience in command positions at squadron, group and wing levels -- as well as commander of the Air Mobility Command -- will provide valuable perspectives," he said.
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tony Richardson, who also served as the commander of the AMC from August 1998 to December 2001, serves as an executive at Boeing Co., which is also competing for the $35 billion contract.
Air Force leaders in KC-X bid effort
WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- A former U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker pilot has joined one of the two companies competing for a government contract to replace the fleet, officials said.
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte is, as of Friday, on the board of directors at EADS North America, one of the companies competing for a $35 billion contract to replace the aging KC-135 fleet, Defense News reports. Lichte is a former KC-135 pilot and repeatedly called for a replacement for the KC-135 when he served as the head of the U.S. Air Mobility Command from September 2007 until November 2009.
Ralph Crosby, the chairman of EADS North America, said Lichte's military experience made him a valuable addition to the board of directors.
"General Lichte's leadership experience in command positions at squadron, group and wing levels -- as well as commander of the Air Mobility Command -- will provide valuable perspectives," he said.
Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tony Richardson, who also served as the commander of the AMC from August 1998 to December 2001, serves as an executive at Boeing Co., which is also competing for the $35 billion contract.
"The INTRODUCER"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Boeing throwing their toys out of the cot.
They're obviously seriously worried about the fixed price bid if they have to compete against EADS.
The Airbus tanker is low risk as virtually no additional work is needed, so they can bid near the bone. The Boeing tanker, on the other hand, is a paper design which, with the background of the Italian order, may cost billions in costs and penalties to builr, debug and deliver.
Even if Boeing win, the bid may have to be so low they may lose money on it for decades to come. Which makes it sensible for EADS to bid, and bid low.
Boeing source: We may not bid for KC-X
They're obviously seriously worried about the fixed price bid if they have to compete against EADS.
The Airbus tanker is low risk as virtually no additional work is needed, so they can bid near the bone. The Boeing tanker, on the other hand, is a paper design which, with the background of the Italian order, may cost billions in costs and penalties to builr, debug and deliver.
Even if Boeing win, the bid may have to be so low they may lose money on it for decades to come. Which makes it sensible for EADS to bid, and bid low.
Boeing source: We may not bid for KC-X
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So.. after months of praising the US DoD for their vision in making the KC-X procurment strategy a "Low price wins" scenario, Boeing are now spitting the dummy because they don't think they can compete on cost now?
Lets re-cap the whole KC-X thing..
Round 1 - Alleged shenanigans from Boeing senior execs and the Air Force to lease aircraft see's the contract cancelled and Boeing Senior staff in Jail.
Round 2 - The RFP for the most capable aircraft, giving all round cost effectiveness, Airbus.. sorry EADS / NGC wins.. Boeing whine, 7 of the 300 and odd protests are up held (Conveniently) and the contract is cancelled, but not before Boeing are handed a copy of the winning bidder's pricing breakdown..
Round 3 - This time the USDOD will get it right, Boeing know the Airbus pricing last time, the 767 is smaller so must be cheaper, lets forget capability and just buy the cheap option, Boeing will win, happy voters... Only thing is... every man and his auntie knows that AiBM are fully aware of the strategic importance of a KC-X win, and suddenly Bubba Boeing isn't sleeping so good because his numbers don't work.. net result.. lets whine and protest again..
So the 767 NG is non-existant, more expensive and even if it does exist eventually, it will be less capable than the A330 anyway.
From a Boeing perspective, win KC-X and it will cost you the shirt off your back to deliver it. Lose KC-X and Airbus will have your shirt anyway..
Ain't life just a bitch sometimes?
Lets re-cap the whole KC-X thing..
Round 1 - Alleged shenanigans from Boeing senior execs and the Air Force to lease aircraft see's the contract cancelled and Boeing Senior staff in Jail.
Round 2 - The RFP for the most capable aircraft, giving all round cost effectiveness, Airbus.. sorry EADS / NGC wins.. Boeing whine, 7 of the 300 and odd protests are up held (Conveniently) and the contract is cancelled, but not before Boeing are handed a copy of the winning bidder's pricing breakdown..
Round 3 - This time the USDOD will get it right, Boeing know the Airbus pricing last time, the 767 is smaller so must be cheaper, lets forget capability and just buy the cheap option, Boeing will win, happy voters... Only thing is... every man and his auntie knows that AiBM are fully aware of the strategic importance of a KC-X win, and suddenly Bubba Boeing isn't sleeping so good because his numbers don't work.. net result.. lets whine and protest again..
So the 767 NG is non-existant, more expensive and even if it does exist eventually, it will be less capable than the A330 anyway.
From a Boeing perspective, win KC-X and it will cost you the shirt off your back to deliver it. Lose KC-X and Airbus will have your shirt anyway..
Ain't life just a bitch sometimes?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underhand action ?
The new coalition in power in UK finds "shock horror" new tanker costs seems to be today's Press story , which is more than a bit surprising, as the deal was signed in 2008. Could be underhand skulduggery manoeuvres by Boeing sympathisers inside MoD/ HM Treasury to knock a hole in the A330-based tanker order book, which would do them no harm in the struggle for the KC-X order (which is why I've posted this here).*
I know that this sort of behaviour "isn't British", but then, neither is Boeing.
*Continuing the Great Britsh Tradition of buying "cheap" from the US and then getting lower performance than they were sold
I know that this sort of behaviour "isn't British", but then, neither is Boeing.
*Continuing the Great Britsh Tradition of buying "cheap" from the US and then getting lower performance than they were sold
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
JP, I think the issue isn't that it isn't the right tanker, rather that PPI is not, and never has been the bargain it was cracked up to be. Hence the RAAF scorning it and the FAF eliminating as a possibility.
the fact is it was just a method of shifting debt off balance sheet and avoiding showing how much we owe, and have ourselves in hock to in the future.
The present government has promised to come clean and reveal all the true figures, including PPI ( and I hope civil service unfunded pensions etc).
If they do that, and assuming the contract has a get out clause, it may be more effective to switch it to a straightforward purchase.
the fact is it was just a method of shifting debt off balance sheet and avoiding showing how much we owe, and have ourselves in hock to in the future.
The present government has promised to come clean and reveal all the true figures, including PPI ( and I hope civil service unfunded pensions etc).
If they do that, and assuming the contract has a get out clause, it may be more effective to switch it to a straightforward purchase.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ORAC
Let's hope you're right (which is probable) - but without additional delays. The first aircraft are well on in build and trials, aren't they?
addendum: If the (once?) fashionable "off balance sheet" accounting mechanism is also declared suspect, for companies as well as the Government, there might be some clarity in prospects for the future !!
addendum: If the (once?) fashionable "off balance sheet" accounting mechanism is also declared suspect, for companies as well as the Government, there might be some clarity in prospects for the future !!
Last edited by Jig Peter; 17th May 2010 at 15:54. Reason: add accounting comment
Yup, sounds as though ol' Bubba Boeing is running scared on this one! Quelle pity.....
The Italian 767 delivery is now 'late 2010', I undertsand? That's if the pods ever work properly throughout the required speed range..... Presumably it'll be cool enough then for the old beast to be able to struggle airborne at somewhere nearer to it's MTOW at Pratica de Mare?
The 767 NoGo has huge winglets, presumably another desperate attempt to solve the buffet and/or flutter problems, plus a high-risk yet-to-be-fully-tested 7-late-7 flight deck. Yes, that'll surely prove cheaper then the proven A330MRTT, won't it... Not much development and testing needed there then, eh Bubba?
As for FSTA, I merely recall the words of the responsible civil serpent in about 1999 - "This programme will NOT be allowed to slip!".
The Italian 767 delivery is now 'late 2010', I undertsand? That's if the pods ever work properly throughout the required speed range..... Presumably it'll be cool enough then for the old beast to be able to struggle airborne at somewhere nearer to it's MTOW at Pratica de Mare?
The 767 NoGo has huge winglets, presumably another desperate attempt to solve the buffet and/or flutter problems, plus a high-risk yet-to-be-fully-tested 7-late-7 flight deck. Yes, that'll surely prove cheaper then the proven A330MRTT, won't it...
Not much development and testing needed there then, eh Bubba?As for FSTA, I merely recall the words of the responsible civil serpent in about 1999 - "This programme will NOT be allowed to slip!".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I don't disagree with you, but shouldn't you be declaring an interest at the beginning of your posts on this subject?
PFI/PPP, or whatever else you want to call it, is a massive con that has been used by the previous governments to hide the true cost of purchases. The announcement of the current shower that they are going to bring all this stuff back onto the books seems, on the face of it, to be a good start.
The danger, of course, is that it just proves we really can't afford anything. The new name badges will be good, though.
STH
I don't disagree with you, but shouldn't you be declaring an interest at the beginning of your posts on this subject?
PFI/PPP, or whatever else you want to call it, is a massive con that has been used by the previous governments to hide the true cost of purchases. The announcement of the current shower that they are going to bring all this stuff back onto the books seems, on the face of it, to be a good start.
The danger, of course, is that it just proves we really can't afford anything. The new name badges will be good, though.
STH
"The INTRODUCER"
MRTT buddy refuelling MRTT
This is from one of several recent sorties in which the first two RAAF KC-30 MRTTs conducted buddy refuelling for the first time. One of the last items before military certification. Very smooth exercise.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Boeing must be getting really desperate. They've realised they can't even allow EADS to bid, because of the price they'd have to match, which they can't afford with the risks of a fixed-price contract. There only remaining tactic is to use tactics like this to persuade Congress to debar, EADS, then twist arms to get the contract changed back to cost plus as "more cost effective".
Reuters: Boeing cites Iran in tanker battle with EADS
WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) - Boeing Co accused rival EADS of having courted Iran and other countries at odds with the United States and said this should figure in awarding a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force refueling plane contract.
EADS, headquartered in Paris and Munich, "continues to do business with countries that are not friendly to the United States," Timothy Keating, Boeing's vice president of government operations, told a small group of reporters. He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said, supplying the transcript and a link to video of an NBC television report at the time.
We have not seen any indication that EADS no longer has an interest in marketing their military products to countries like Iran," Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said in a followup telephone interview. Keating and other Boeing executives urged U.S. officials to factor national security into the competition for a new fleet of tankers, used to refuel warplanes during flight.
A spokesman for EADS North American arm responded by accusing Boeing of mounting "a misinformation campaign" in an attempt to make the competition "about anything other than getting the best tanker for the Air Force."
EADS' James Darcy said Boeing was calling into question the U.S. Defense Department's judgment since it was "DoD that stood up and said we could bid on KC-X as a prime" contractor. "And that was based on their evaluation of a whole host of factors, principal among which were national security concerns," Darcy said.
The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
Boeing officials said the national security matter loomed large now that Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), EADS's partner in a previous tanker competition, had dropped out. This removed the leverage that the U.S. government would have had to make sure of an uninterrupted flow of spare parts for any Airbus tanker in case of a policy difference with France and Germany, which hold stakes in EADS and which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"What leverage does the United States have over EADS North America" the unit that would be the prime contractor, Keating asked. "A lot less than they would have over the Boeing Company" which does a lot more business with Washington, he responded.
In the NBC television report that aired on Feb. 23, 2005, an EADS representative, identified as Michel Tripier, said his company was emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish. "As a European company, we're not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.," he said on camera at the time.
Reuters: Boeing cites Iran in tanker battle with EADS
WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) - Boeing Co accused rival EADS of having courted Iran and other countries at odds with the United States and said this should figure in awarding a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force refueling plane contract.
EADS, headquartered in Paris and Munich, "continues to do business with countries that are not friendly to the United States," Timothy Keating, Boeing's vice president of government operations, told a small group of reporters. He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said, supplying the transcript and a link to video of an NBC television report at the time.
We have not seen any indication that EADS no longer has an interest in marketing their military products to countries like Iran," Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said in a followup telephone interview. Keating and other Boeing executives urged U.S. officials to factor national security into the competition for a new fleet of tankers, used to refuel warplanes during flight.
A spokesman for EADS North American arm responded by accusing Boeing of mounting "a misinformation campaign" in an attempt to make the competition "about anything other than getting the best tanker for the Air Force."
EADS' James Darcy said Boeing was calling into question the U.S. Defense Department's judgment since it was "DoD that stood up and said we could bid on KC-X as a prime" contractor. "And that was based on their evaluation of a whole host of factors, principal among which were national security concerns," Darcy said.
The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
Boeing officials said the national security matter loomed large now that Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), EADS's partner in a previous tanker competition, had dropped out. This removed the leverage that the U.S. government would have had to make sure of an uninterrupted flow of spare parts for any Airbus tanker in case of a policy difference with France and Germany, which hold stakes in EADS and which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"What leverage does the United States have over EADS North America" the unit that would be the prime contractor, Keating asked. "A lot less than they would have over the Boeing Company" which does a lot more business with Washington, he responded.
In the NBC television report that aired on Feb. 23, 2005, an EADS representative, identified as Michel Tripier, said his company was emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish. "As a European company, we're not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.," he said on camera at the time.
Last edited by ORAC; 26th May 2010 at 14:25. Reason: sp
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing are actually sending out begging e-mails to visitors to their Tanker website begging for support for the inclusion of penalties based on the WTO report into the RFP.
In short they have become desperate and an absolute disgrace to the USA.
As for EADS trying to flog civil helicopters in Iran.. a couple of notable items on the Iranian Air Force inventory..
BOEING CH-47
BOEING 707 Tanker
BOEING 747
Whats next from Boeing, bribery AGAIN???
As an organization, as representatives of US Defense primes and as people, Boeing are absolutely shameful.
In short they have become desperate and an absolute disgrace to the USA.
As for EADS trying to flog civil helicopters in Iran.. a couple of notable items on the Iranian Air Force inventory..
BOEING CH-47
BOEING 707 Tanker
BOEING 747
Whats next from Boeing, bribery AGAIN???
As an organization, as representatives of US Defense primes and as people, Boeing are absolutely shameful.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This removed the leverage that the U.S. government would have had to make sure of an uninterrupted flow of spare parts for any Airbus tanker in case of a policy difference with France and Germany, which hold stakes in EADS and which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The above point is not inconsequential.
I do not, ever, want US policy decided by another nation.
Boeing has/is screwing this up by the numbers (as has the Pentagon), but spare me the hypocrisy. When the financial stakes are this big, each company is going all-out to win.
It's not unheard of.
EADS is hardly the shining Euro-knight on the hill.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Brick, then I suggest you debar the Boeing 767 as well. Still, I suppose in Boeing's eyes the Chinese and the Russians are more trustworthy than the Europeans......
B767 Airframe Component Suppliers:
Czech Republic Aero Vodochody a.s. Aircraft Control Surfaces: Fixed leading edge parts & kits (Spirit Aerosystems)
South Africa Aerosud Pty Ltd Aircraft Interior Bulkheads: Business class seat partitions
Italy Alenia Aeronautica SpA Wings: Spoilers, flaps, ailerons, slats and wing tips; Empennages: Fin; Aircraft Control Surfaces: Rudder; Radomes: Radome
Canada Avcorp Industries Inc. Fairings: Aft strut fairings
China BHA Aero Composite Parts Co., Ltd Wings: Wing fixed trailing edge; Empennages: Empennage panels
Israel Elbit Systems Cyclone Ltd Fairings: Tail skid fairing; Aircraft Doors: Blowout doors
UK GKN Aerospace Services Winglets: Blended winglets (767-300 ER)
India Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Aircraft Division Bangalore) Aircraft Doors: Bulk cargo door
Korea Korean Air Aerospace Business Division Fuselage Sections: Body sections
Japan Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Fuselage Sections: Aft fuselage panel; Aircraft Doors: Cargo doors
UK Spirit AeroSystems Europe Ltd Wings: Fixed leading edges
B767 Airframe Component Suppliers:
Czech Republic Aero Vodochody a.s. Aircraft Control Surfaces: Fixed leading edge parts & kits (Spirit Aerosystems)
South Africa Aerosud Pty Ltd Aircraft Interior Bulkheads: Business class seat partitions
Italy Alenia Aeronautica SpA Wings: Spoilers, flaps, ailerons, slats and wing tips; Empennages: Fin; Aircraft Control Surfaces: Rudder; Radomes: Radome
Canada Avcorp Industries Inc. Fairings: Aft strut fairings
China BHA Aero Composite Parts Co., Ltd Wings: Wing fixed trailing edge; Empennages: Empennage panels
Israel Elbit Systems Cyclone Ltd Fairings: Tail skid fairing; Aircraft Doors: Blowout doors
UK GKN Aerospace Services Winglets: Blended winglets (767-300 ER)
India Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Aircraft Division Bangalore) Aircraft Doors: Bulk cargo door
Korea Korean Air Aerospace Business Division Fuselage Sections: Body sections
Japan Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Fuselage Sections: Aft fuselage panel; Aircraft Doors: Cargo doors
UK Spirit AeroSystems Europe Ltd Wings: Fixed leading edges
Last edited by ORAC; 26th May 2010 at 16:02.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk, talk...
The thing I find interesting is that most of the Boeing publicity seems to be directed at discrediting the EADS product (and company), rather than promoting their own. Normally, if my inexpert assessment of publicity campaigns is correct, public opinion will end up gravitating to the product that receives the most exposure, good or bad. Not sure Boeing are doing themselves a favor, then. Again, of course, the contract won't be decided by the public.
Normally, if my inexpert assessment of publicity campaigns is correct, public opinion will end up gravitating to the product that receives the most exposure, good or bad. Not sure Boeing are doing themselves a favor, then. Again, of course, the contract won't be decided by the public.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Boeing's concern for foreign involvment in defence project does not extend to ground vehicles - they are fronting up a german bid of the Puma IFV for the US GCV programme. www.defenseaerospace.com
