irtusk
I see they have given up on their next gen boom and gone for a variant of the one off the KC-10.
They didn’t have a choice. Their next-gen boom was limited to 900 GPM and the new RFP required 1200 GPM. Boeing fought that requirement hard, but the USAF stuck to their guns.
So Boeing had to throw out all their work on the NGB and go back to the KC-10 boom (that does support 1200 GPM)
irtuskPNAA: Split buy is only solution for tanker buy
Day 2 of the PNAA conference: Richard Aboulafia, consultant of The Teal Group, said that a split buy is the only way the USAF will be able to procure the KC-X tanker.
Aboulafia said the decision no longer effectively rests with the Air Force, but with Congress. Each political party has the ability to block a sole-source selection, Aboulafia says.
Top 3: Notes from CSBA’s press conference on DOD budget
It’s more than four months into Fiscal 2011, and Congress still has not passed an appropriations bill. This is bad news for the KC-X competition, which is in the final phase of a source selection process. The rules are pretty clear: No appropriations bill, no funding for new programs. There is a possible loophole called the Feed and Forage Act — a Civil War-era statute that allows combat troops to buy certain things, including transportation, without a specific appropriation. Harrison says the DOD may attempt to invoke the Feed and Forage Act for KC-X, but it’s unlikely to work. More likely, he says, is that the USAF may downselect to a single bidder, then wait until Congress passes the next appropriations bill to award a contract. How long will that take? Given the current political statemate, that’s anybody’s guess.
irtuskPNAA conference: EADS likely to win tanker contest
We’re at Day 1 of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in Lynnwood (WA) and at the Defense Focus Day co-organized by the Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition, consultant Michel Merluzeau of G2 Solutions (Kirkland, WA) predicted EADS will likely win the KC-X competition.
Before the Francophiles go crazy, Merluzeau favors Boeing’s KC-767.
Merluzeau believes the capability for longer-range, greater fuel-carrying capability of the EADS KC-45 will be the deciding factors, as expressed in the IFARA matrix. The KC-30, as it was then known in 2008 when Northrop Grumman won the competition, scored better in IFARA. It also scored better than the KC-767 in IFARA that was inadvertently distributed by the USAF late last year.
IFARA scores the tankers on a variety of metrics and the larger KC-45 (or KC-30) bested the KC-767 in every category.
irtusk“In air-to-air configuration, CFTs are expected to extend combat radius by 10% to “the high 700s” (nautical miles)”.
Does not sound too impressive?
That’s a 10% gain vs the traditional fuel tank, not vs no tank at all.
Also it leaves the center pylon free for more weapons (or maybe the traditional tank too?)
irtuskEADS will not improve U.S. tanker
Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders said on Saturday the European planemaker’s parent company EADS would not improve its bid to build a fleet of U.S. Air Force aerial refueling planes.
“It is not our style to make hectic corrections at the last minute,” Enders told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich.
Enders said EADS had made a very good offer for the contract, that also made economic sense, whereas competitor Boeing Co had announced “last changes” to its bid.
. . .
Boeing and EADS must submit their final proposal revisions, also known as “best and final offers,” for the aerial tankers by February 11 after separate meetings with U.S. Air Force officials on Monday, February 7.
irtuskWhats in it for US Aerospace?
presumably China is paying them
irtuskEADS Won’t Say If KC-X Bid Changes
They also met on Monday with the Air Force. “We received final proposal revisions, which are due to the customer on Friday, Feb. 11 at 8 a.m at Wright Patterson (Air Force Base),” said Guy Hicks, head spokesman. Hicks refused to say whether his company would revise its bid.
We understand that among the details the Air Force disclosed to both companies were the IFARA [Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment] score, the military construction score and the fuel burn score.
Given the culture of the two companies, and the fact that Boeing executives have reportedly revealed their deep unease with their chances of winning the contract, it seems reasonable to assume that EADS did not feel compelled to alter its bid because its scores left them feeling pretty confident.
i was under the impression they only released the IFARA score to both sides?
if they released milcon and fuel burn, pretty much the only thing left is bid price
and of course Boeing knows exactly what NG bid last time, so with practically all the bid variables, they must have a pretty decent idea if they have any shot at all
irtuskBoeing To Revise Bid For U.S. Military Tanker Deal
A Boeing spokesman said the firm and U.S. Air Force officials held talks Jan. 31 to discuss the company’s proposal and revisions would follow.
“This was our last opportunity to get feedback from the Air Force on our proposal before the end of the tanker competition,” Bill Barksdale said in a company blog post.
“Based on this feedback, we’re now making final adjustments to our bid, which we will provide February 11 to the Air Force,” he said.
. . .
Analysts expect the Air Force to announce its decision in March
irtuskWTO penalties on the tanker? Let’s talk about this
1 Alleged subsidies for the Boeing 767, on which Boeing’s KC-767 is based, were not part of the EU’s complaint against Boeing and therefore there is no valuation to assess against the Boeing tanker;
2 Airbus claims the true subsidy valuation for the A330-200, on which the EADS KC-45 is based, is $54m, not the $5bn claimed by Boeing and its supporters. Just as the absence of hammering home Point #1 is inexplicable, so is Airbus hammering home Point #2
. . .
The underlying questions are: Why hasn’t Boeing touted the 767′s status and why hasn’t Airbus and EADS (1) undertaken an aggressive campaign to set the record straight (as they see it) and (2) if all we’re talking about here is $48,913 per airplane, concede the assessment and move on.
Once more, this underscores the entire silliness of the WTO complaints with respect to the tanker issue.
irtuskIt’s Boeing advocates, not those on the side of Airbus, who seem to be getting ready for a loss in the tanker contest
Uberconsultant to defense companies Dr Loren Thompson issues what is little less than a Jeremiad against Airbus, and the European governments who have been its primary bankers throughout much of its development. It is government subsidy on a massive scale, Thompson charges, which will allow Airbus to undercut Boeing’s price on the tanker deal with a larger aircraft, and win the contract
. . .
What Thompson, and some on Capitol Hill, are advocating is a retroactive change in the tanker competition rules, to throw out any decision in favor of Airbus. Such a decision would subordinate the Pentagon’s judgment to that of Congress, delay the program and increase its costs, and force the USAF to buy its second-choice aircraft. It’s hard to consider an action that would be more damaging to European-US defense trade interests.
One final observation: Thompson’s clients usually keep him well informed, and he’s saying bluntly that “the Air Force is planning to award the $35 billion tanker contract to its European rival”. The piece in Forbes reads a lot like what doctrine writers call “shaping the battlespace”.
irtusklong awaited ruling that Boeing received illegal subsidies too.
WTO finds Boeing got billions in illegal subsidies, but how many billions?
Boeing received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies, a World Trade Organization panel determined in a ruling released to the parties Monday.
But the two sides offered vastly different accounts of the ruling, which will remain confidential for several more weeks, until the WTO releases official translations.
Airbus said the subsidies amount to at least $5 billion, plus $2 billion more pledged for the future, and cost Airbus at least $45 billion in lost sales — much more than the impact of illegal subsidies a separate panel found that European nations gave to the European plane maker.
. . .
But Boeing called the ruling “a sweeping rejection of the EU’s claims,” saying the panel found just some $2.6 billion in illegal subsidies.
not sure any of this directly relates to the 767, but it certainly hurts Boeing’s ability to claim the moral highground.
irtuskFinally, Boeing Delivers a KC-767 to Italy
Almost six years late, Boeing has delivered the first of four KC-767A tanker/transports to the Italian air force. The aircraft, serial MM 62229, was handed over at Practica di Mare airbase south of Rome on Jan 27.
a major monkey off Boeing’s back
irtuskPentagon Defers Senate KC-X Questions
The U.S. Air Force will respond to a lawmaker’s inquiry on whether the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (Ifara) can be eliminated from the armed service’s KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition, as well as comment on how important Ifara is to the award, an Air Force representative told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) this morning.
irtuskOne of the evaluation criteria for any proposal to the Pentagon is “Past Performance” (satisfactory contract performance with respect to cost, schedule and management).
That evaluation area can contribute up to 20% of the overall scoring criteria. Unless the Chinese can show accounting, schedule and management performance in accordance with DOD standards, they will be scored too low to ever win a contract.
well they brought the J-20 and the ‘carrier-killer’ missile out far before Pentagon estimates
i guess to meet ‘DOD Standards’ they should have delayed them for several years 😀
irtuskAirbus Military details ‘limited damage’ to A330 tanker after boom mishap
“The boom detached at the root of the structural mast,” says Airbus Military, responding to questions from Flightglobal. “There is no damage to the boom attachment, nor is there any significant damage to the [aircraft’s] fuselage,” it adds.
However, the company is assessing the likely duration of limited repairs required, which it says are “in the non-pressurised area of the tail cone and auxiliary power unit area (structure)”.
The company test crew piloting the A330 flew the aircraft for a further 1h 40min after the incident before landing at its Getafe site near Madrid. They reported “no impact or consequences on the overall systems behaviour of the aircraft”, it notes.
The F-16 also sustained minor damage as a result of the mishap, but landed safely at Monte Real air base. The broken boom section fell into the sea following the contact.
Sign In
