A new thread for keeping track of what was bid and general KC-X news through selectionb
Boeing
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100709
The Boeing Company today submitted a proposal to the U.S. Air Force to provide the service with a next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/boeing-offers-kc-767-to-usaf/
a key element to the offering is the plan by Boeing to shift the 767 production line in Everett to a Lean Manufacturing approach. This will cut production costs by about 20% . . . (Note: this does not necessarily translate to a 20% lower airplane cost since parts going into the airplanes continue to rise with prices and costs at suppliers.)
. . .
Previous BCA president Scott Carson is reliably reported to have held firm on pricing by BCA to IDS for the 767 platform for the profits at BCA. In the byzantine way of doing things at Boeing, BCA sells the platform to IDS and IDS adds the military hardware and then sells the airplane to the USAF. Carson demanded a profit on the BCA sale to IDS, which then had to mark up everything to USAF. (Can you say Northrop Grumman and EADS?)
Now, with Albaugh at BCA, forget this approach. There will be one profit for The Boeing Co.
In a pre-Farnborough Air Show press briefing last month, Boeing said that the profit-on-profit concept is history.While Boeing did not detail how the intra-company sale will be handled between BCA and what is now called Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS), it was clear the plan is a profit for The Boeing Co. and not “profit-on-profit.”
competition is a beautiful thing, no?
http://iagblog.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-09T11_53_21-07_00
Boeing spokesperson Bill Barksdale explains how important this deal is to them and points out that his company’s airplane is not quite as lacking as was suggested by EADS yesterday in their own briefing.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/09/boeing-touts-kc-x-cost-jobs/
One of the attributes mentioned in the Boeing release — the digital flight deck using 787 Dreamliner displays — raises interesting questions about cost that Boeing has so far not addressed. This is the biggest change from the last bid. Several close observers of the tanker competition say placing such modern technology in a relatively old airframe will require substantial and probably costly modifications.
EADS
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/eads-submits-tanker-bid-boeing-to-follow/
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/kc-45-press-lunch-slides-7-08-10.pdf
All new spider chart, huzzah!
US Aerospace
U.S. Aerospace, Inc. (OTCBB: USAE), a U.S. aerospace and defense contractor, today announced that it has submitted a bid to the U.S. Air Force to supply 179 aerial refueling tankers at $150 Million per plane, with a total bid package of $29.55 Billion including research and development costs.
It’s been a week and I still haven’t heard anything from Antonov either confirming or denying their involvement
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4702701&c=AME&s=AIR
U.S. Aerospace on July 9 submitted its long-shot bid for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X tanker contract, but in documents filed with federal regulators the same day, the company gives itself little chance of winning.
The California-based aircraft components maker and its Ukrainian partner Antonov have entered a modified version of the AN-112-KC into the $35 billion tanker race, joining Boeing and EADS.
. . .
In a new twist, however, an 8K/A report U.S. Aerospace filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9 essentially acknowledges what experts have been saying for a week.
“The Air Force may find that our proposal does not meet all mandatory [request for proposals] requirements, that we do not have qualified subcontractors and teaming partners, that we are not a capable and responsible contractor, that we have not obtained or processed the classified information that is needed to prepare a proposal, that we have not demonstrated that the company has the facility and personnel clearances that are prerequisites to receiving, handling and storing classified information, and that our failure to meet the proposal submittal deadline was attributable to our failure to act diligently and promptly,” the document states.
But wait, there’s more.
The company tells the SEC the air service might conclude Antonov “is not an acceptable subcontractor, that required teaming agreements have not been entered into, and that using [a] Ukranian commercial aircraft as the basis for a KC-X tanker proposal is unacceptable.”
U.S. Aerospace also acknowledges the Air Force might deem the AN-112-KC “too new” or “not adequately designed, manufactured or certified.” The SEC filing also states the team might not have submitted all necessary information to amply support their last-minute bid.
“For any or all of these reasons, the Air Force may not select our bid, may disqualify our bid, or may refuse to consider it on the merits, or at all,” according to the SEC form.
USAF
KC-X Bids In: And the Race Begins, Again
Don’t expect much out of the Pentagon. It appears to be in lock down mode. Air Force spokeswoman Col. Debra Millett says the service will not even disclose how many bidders offer proposals. Clearly, the name of the game is protest avoidance
.
Sign In
July 10, 2010 at 2:49 am