KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
“Boeing … they can't afford to lose this contest - the problem being they can't afford to win it either.....
For discussion - ‘what if’ one party wins the contract (Airbus), but the agreement is that other party (Boeing) ‘builds’ the aircraft.
Perhaps there is a behind the scenes Airbus – Boeing tie up (not commercial aircraft); thus benefiting both manufacturers and national aspirations. There may be inter governmental support – now why did Airbus rebid … ?
With the appearance of a third party (good, cheap alternative – for use elsewhere in the world) there would be even more impetus to have a managed, shared, world-wide solution – kill off the opposition.
The result would be to have the most suitable, cost-effective product; US manufacture (assembly or fitting) solves the US politics, but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.
Funnier things happen in aviation – fighters for bananas, commercial jets for shoes.
For discussion - ‘what if’ one party wins the contract (Airbus), but the agreement is that other party (Boeing) ‘builds’ the aircraft.
Perhaps there is a behind the scenes Airbus – Boeing tie up (not commercial aircraft); thus benefiting both manufacturers and national aspirations. There may be inter governmental support – now why did Airbus rebid … ?
With the appearance of a third party (good, cheap alternative – for use elsewhere in the world) there would be even more impetus to have a managed, shared, world-wide solution – kill off the opposition.
The result would be to have the most suitable, cost-effective product; US manufacture (assembly or fitting) solves the US politics, but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.
Funnier things happen in aviation – fighters for bananas, commercial jets for shoes.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Ares:
EADS North America CEO Status Unknown After Plane Crash
EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe was on an aircraft that crashed in Alaska last night. He was among several guests traveling with former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) on a personal fishing trip, according to an EADS official. O'Keefe's son was thought to be on board as well.
CNN is reporting that five of the nine people onboard died. The whereabouts of the others are unknown. News reports indicate that several people on the ground were already at the site when emergency personnel arrived.
The crash apparently occurred around 8 pm Alaska time, or about midnight Eastern time. The aircraft was a DeHavilland DHC-3T, which is known for handling well at slow speeds. It crashed about 10 miles northwest of Aleknagik.
Apparently, there was inclement weather around the time of the crash. Bad weather also has been hampering rescue efforts, although some medical personnel made it to the crash site.
O'Keefe is the point person for one of EADS's biggest military campaigns. The North America wing of the company is again locked in competition against Boeing for the $35 billion KC-X tanker competition. The winner will build 179 refuelers for the U.S. Air Force to replace KC-135s.
Ralph Crosby and David Oliver, chairman of the board and chief operating officer (respectively) are stepping in for the time being to manage issues at the company. EADS North America spokesman Guy Hicks declined to comment on a succession plan should O'Keefe have died in the crash.
Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997-2005.
EADS North America CEO Status Unknown After Plane Crash
EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe was on an aircraft that crashed in Alaska last night. He was among several guests traveling with former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) on a personal fishing trip, according to an EADS official. O'Keefe's son was thought to be on board as well.
CNN is reporting that five of the nine people onboard died. The whereabouts of the others are unknown. News reports indicate that several people on the ground were already at the site when emergency personnel arrived.
The crash apparently occurred around 8 pm Alaska time, or about midnight Eastern time. The aircraft was a DeHavilland DHC-3T, which is known for handling well at slow speeds. It crashed about 10 miles northwest of Aleknagik.
Apparently, there was inclement weather around the time of the crash. Bad weather also has been hampering rescue efforts, although some medical personnel made it to the crash site.
O'Keefe is the point person for one of EADS's biggest military campaigns. The North America wing of the company is again locked in competition against Boeing for the $35 billion KC-X tanker competition. The winner will build 179 refuelers for the U.S. Air Force to replace KC-135s.
Ralph Crosby and David Oliver, chairman of the board and chief operating officer (respectively) are stepping in for the time being to manage issues at the company. EADS North America spokesman Guy Hicks declined to comment on a succession plan should O'Keefe have died in the crash.
Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997-2005.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NY Times is reporting that O'Keefe survived the crash:
Full text here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us...sh.html?src=me
Sean O’Keefe, 54, a former NASA administrator who now is an executive with the European aerospace firm EADS, was also on the plane with his son, but they both survived, according to an official briefed on the crash who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing. Mr. O’Keefe, the official said, was among the three passengers airlifted to an Anchorage hospital.
WTO report due today
The WTO report is expected to state that Boeing did receive illegal subsidies.
Duece?
World Trade Organisation to rule Boeing $24bn subsidies illegal - Telegraph
Duece?
World Trade Organisation to rule Boeing $24bn subsidies illegal - Telegraph
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprising... this puts any talk of "penalties" to rest... both companies got aid from their governments, neither company should be penalized... just look at the actual aircraft & associated production/support programs and make the d@mned decision!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Why do I get the idea that the DoD is getting ready to award the contract to EADS, again....... 
Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid: experts
Aviation Week: Additional Fuel May Pay Off In Tanker Competition
Federal news Radio: Air Force warned against further tanker delay
Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid: experts
Aviation Week: Additional Fuel May Pay Off In Tanker Competition
Federal news Radio: Air Force warned against further tanker delay
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I personally think that additional fuel offload is of great value” considering military scenarios that would require long-distance flights over the Pacific Ocean, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS research, said on Tuesday. If a tanker carries more fuel it will be able to fly farther, stay on station longer and have more fuel left over for waiting aircraft, Grant said.
Done some tanking (note the "T" there please) in my time and no one ever mentioned that nugget of information to me. Maybe it's because it didn't need saying........
Get the Airbus. Be done with it. Looks like the 787 just had 221 orders or something anyway......
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The result would be to have the most suitable, cost-effective product; US manufacture (assembly or fitting) solves the US politics, ...
Only if "US manufacture" = aircraft which are mostly US domestic content.
....but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.[/COLOR]
That does exclude mostly Yur-O-pee-un Airbus manufacture of any tankers. If Autobus of the Air wants to buld A320 tankers in Alabama, that might fly.
What that Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid stuff means is that the Air Force will probably get some 777-based tankers, after considerable delay.
Only if "US manufacture" = aircraft which are mostly US domestic content.
....but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.[/COLOR]
That does exclude mostly Yur-O-pee-un Airbus manufacture of any tankers. If Autobus of the Air wants to buld A320 tankers in Alabama, that might fly.
What that Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid stuff means is that the Air Force will probably get some 777-based tankers, after considerable delay.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
New delay likely in tanker competition
We have been told by two sources, including one that is very close to the competition, that the Air Force is likely to announce a new delay soon in evaluation and award of a contract in the long-running KC-X tanker competition.
One source says the delay will be until the first quarter; the other didn’t have a new timeline but said the USAF was preparing to notify the competitors any time now.
We have written on several occasions, including a week ago, that another delay was likely. The USAF has already delayed the current competition, the third, from August and November to December and hinted a week ago another one was coming.
Boeing and EADS are the remaining bidders for the contract after the Government Accountability Office threw out a protest from US Aerospace, which was late submitting its bid.
The Air Force is evaluating the Boeing and EADS bids, and we’ve been told that the evaluation is proceeding more slowly than anticipated. The USAF issues what are called Evaluation Notices, or ENs, to the companies when it seeks additional information. This process is going slowly, we’re told.
There is also a point in which Boeing and EADS will be asked to submit Final Proposal Revisions, or FPRs (pronounced “fippers”), that amount to the best-and-final submissions. As of early this week, the FPR date had not been provided to the two companies.............
We have been told by two sources, including one that is very close to the competition, that the Air Force is likely to announce a new delay soon in evaluation and award of a contract in the long-running KC-X tanker competition.
One source says the delay will be until the first quarter; the other didn’t have a new timeline but said the USAF was preparing to notify the competitors any time now.
We have written on several occasions, including a week ago, that another delay was likely. The USAF has already delayed the current competition, the third, from August and November to December and hinted a week ago another one was coming.
Boeing and EADS are the remaining bidders for the contract after the Government Accountability Office threw out a protest from US Aerospace, which was late submitting its bid.
The Air Force is evaluating the Boeing and EADS bids, and we’ve been told that the evaluation is proceeding more slowly than anticipated. The USAF issues what are called Evaluation Notices, or ENs, to the companies when it seeks additional information. This process is going slowly, we’re told.
There is also a point in which Boeing and EADS will be asked to submit Final Proposal Revisions, or FPRs (pronounced “fippers”), that amount to the best-and-final submissions. As of early this week, the FPR date had not been provided to the two companies.............
....and the article goes on to state:
(My bold type)
Aircraft capability seems to be of rather less importance to the US than politics....
Tanker capability cannot be measured purely in terms of max fuel capacity - because the tanker will burn some of that fuel itself. You might have one tanker which holds 75 tonne and another which holds 70. You would think that the 75 tonne aircraft would be more capable - but if the latter burns fuel at an average rate of 7.5 tonne per hour and the former at only 5.5, in a 4 hr mission landing with 1 hr of fuel remaining (to keep the figures simple), the 75 tonne aircraft can offer a maximum of 37.5 tonnes to receivers, whereas the 70 tonne aircraft can offer 5 tonnes more.... On a 6 hr mission, the difference is 9 tonnes. Only if the mission was less than 1.5 hours would the 75 tonne aircraft offer any greater offload potential - perhaps rather unrealistic?
There's also the balanced field requirement for the tanker to take-off at MTOW under ISA/SL/Still Air conditions to consider... Something about which ol' Bubba Boeing likes to keep rather quiet.
Does he yet have an actual date for delivering the 4 long overdue tankers to the Italian air force....
The slip to after the first of the year has unintended political implications. Pundits are certain the Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives, which means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA), Boeing’s biggest booster in the House, will lose his chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first stop for funding the tanker award. Dicks has long vowed to block any funding should EADS win the contract. Conventional wisdom, though generally overstated, is that EADS is closer to Republicans and Boeing is closer to Democrats in the tanker fight. In fact, there are members of both parties who are supporters of both companies.
Aircraft capability seems to be of rather less importance to the US than politics....
Tanker capability cannot be measured purely in terms of max fuel capacity - because the tanker will burn some of that fuel itself. You might have one tanker which holds 75 tonne and another which holds 70. You would think that the 75 tonne aircraft would be more capable - but if the latter burns fuel at an average rate of 7.5 tonne per hour and the former at only 5.5, in a 4 hr mission landing with 1 hr of fuel remaining (to keep the figures simple), the 75 tonne aircraft can offer a maximum of 37.5 tonnes to receivers, whereas the 70 tonne aircraft can offer 5 tonnes more.... On a 6 hr mission, the difference is 9 tonnes. Only if the mission was less than 1.5 hours would the 75 tonne aircraft offer any greater offload potential - perhaps rather unrealistic?
There's also the balanced field requirement for the tanker to take-off at MTOW under ISA/SL/Still Air conditions to consider... Something about which ol' Bubba Boeing likes to keep rather quiet.
Does he yet have an actual date for delivering the 4 long overdue tankers to the Italian air force....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubba is in short - screwed. all that remains is for him to admit it. so do not hold your breath...
I can see a massive order going Bubba's way - after all we are not the only country with balls for a procurement procedure
I can see a massive order going Bubba's way - after all we are not the only country with balls for a procurement procedure
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Corporate Crime, Corroding Planes: The Inside Story of The Air Force’s Tanker Mess
The article linked in the Washingtonian is long but excellent, well worth the effort to read.
The article linked in the Washingtonian is long but excellent, well worth the effort to read.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, with the shake up in the HASC and the leadership changing over - farewell, Ike Skelton - it'll be interesting to see what the changed politics looks like. Building A330s in Alabama suddenly looks a whole lot more politically savvy.
S41
S41
Pundits are certain the Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives, which means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA), Boeing’s biggest booster in the House, will lose his chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first stop for funding the tanker award.
I guess that ol'Bubba must be sweating somewhat....
Still no Italian 767s - and still no prototype 767NoGo. Time to move on, Bubba.
B767 Tanker delivered....but not by ol'Bubba
Well, it seems that, despite ol'Bubba's manifest incompetence concerning the delivery of the KC-767I to the Italian Air Force, IAI have delivered the first 767 tanker to a customer... See: PICTURES: Colombia accepts 767 tanker from IAI
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
USAF Gaffe Roils Tanker Contest
'Clerical Error' Misaddressed Firms' Bid Evaluations
Earlier this month, the U.S. Air Force sent letters to rival planemakers about their bids for the $35 billion-dollar tanker contest - but it mixed them up, delivering its technical assessment of Boeing's bid to EADS, and vice versa.
The mistake may imperil the service's latest, bend-over-backwards effort to advance the 179-aircraft program, whose previous incarnation was dissolved after the Government Accountability Office ruled the service improperly gave the contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman.
"Earlier this month, there was a clerical error that resulted in limited amounts of identical source-selection information being provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor's offer," Air Force spokesman Col. Les Kodlick said Nov. 20. "Both offerors immediately recognized the error and contacted the Air Force contracting officers."
Kodlick said the service is analyzing the information that was inadvertently disclosed and has taken steps to ensure that both competitors have had equal access to the same information.
Sources said each firm received the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessments (IFARA) of the other's bid. The IFARA models tanker operations in various scenarios to figure out how many tankers will be needed. The Air Force uses the assessment, along with fuel and construction cost estimates, to assay how risky the rivals' bids will be. In the last incarnation of the tanker contest, the IFARA was the single biggest risk factor.
Kodlick said the service also is trying to find out how the mistake happened and ensure that it is not repeated.
"The KC-X source selection will continue. This incident will not impact our schedule for source selection," Kodlick said. "However, certain aspects of the source selection have taken slightly longer than originally anticipated, and we currently expect the award to occur early next year."
Boeing and EADS formally declined to comment on the latest episode in the protracted refueling plane saga as Air Force officials briefed members of Congress...................
If you look at the USAF's "Roadmap for UAS 2009 to 2047" you will see that they want MQ-L for KC-X. MQ-L is an unmanned version of X-48; Boeing's BWB offering.
Sorry to BEagle if you've just choked on your cornflakes!
iRaven
PS. MQ-L is also looking replace RJ, B52 and AWACS around 2025
Sorry to BEagle if you've just choked on your cornflakes!
iRaven
PS. MQ-L is also looking replace RJ, B52 and AWACS around 2025
Sources said each firm received the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessments (IFARA) of the other's bid. The IFARA models tanker operations in various scenarios to figure out how many tankers will be needed. The Air Force uses the assessment, along with fuel and construction cost estimates, to assay how risky the rivals' bids will be. In the last incarnation of the tanker contest, the IFARA was the single biggest risk factor.
It will be interesting to see if this disclosure could have a material affect on any best and final phase (if there is to be one).
Whether or not the USAF is able to keep its elderly fleet of KC-135R and KC-10A serviceable until 2025, when things such as this:
might possibly come into service is a risk which only the US might be able to answer....
Until then, the KC-X is probably the best solution. The mind-blowing incompetence of supplying each others' confidential IFARA information to rival bidders is simply incredible....
Until then, the KC-X is probably the best solution. The mind-blowing incompetence of supplying each others' confidential IFARA information to rival bidders is simply incredible....