GAO Dismisses Some, Not All of Tanker Protest

the GAO is dismissing the most serious accusations made by the firm, U.S. Aerospace, which claim the Air Force engaged in intentional misconduct.

. . .

The GAO will consider U.S. Aerospace’s claims that, in fact, its bid was actually delivered on time, and even if it was a few minutes late, it should still be considered, as “acceptance would not unduly delay the procurement”

EADS says won’t kill price to win tanker

European aerospace group EADS vowed on Wednesday to stop short of offering below-cost refueler aircraft in its high-stakes rematch against Boeing for a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force contract.

. . .

EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois told Reuters the company would make money even as it competes aggressively to win the hotly contested defense deal to be announced this fall.

“We are not ready to kill the price,” Gallois told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit.

“Clearly we can live without the tanker deal but we want to earn money on this deal if we win it. The board of EADS has given me clear indications they want to have a profitable contract.”

nothing particularly new

more important:

“It is important for strategic reasons because we would become a U.S. aircraft manufacturer. It is very important. Economically we can live without it — it is 15 planes a year.”

Thrown Out KC-X Bidder Launches Second Protest

The company filed its second protest last week, claiming the Air Force intentionally misplaced or lost evidence that would prove its assertion that the U.S. Aerospace bid was late to Wright-Patterson AFB. . . the company claims the service lacks entry logs for the gate at Wright-Patterson AFB and also had a computer hard drive containing entry footage from security cameras crash.

awfully convenient :diablo:

The second protest will be ruled upon by the Government Accountability Office by Nov. 5. This protest was filed after the Air Force provided its response to the first protest from U.S. Aerospace. The first protest was lodged Aug. 2, and GAO expects to rule on it by Oct. 6.

The question is whether Sikorsky can make the X-2 concept commercially (or militarily) viable. To do so would mean being cheaper than traditional helos in flyaway costs, maintenance costs and spares/support costs.

that’s a pretty tall order

fortunately they only have to beat a ‘traditional’ tiltrotor for their target market

The thing to consider though is that the max speed of the X-2 is 100 knots slower than the Osprey(which cruises at the X-2’s max.)

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.htm

Osprey’s max speed is 250 knots, same as X-2

The V-22 looks a lot bigger though, how many men could the X-2 carry if any?

right, that’s why i made the comment “If nothing prevents it from being scaled up”

obviously it wouldn’t be the X-2 itself, but X-2 technology

wow, apparently he and his son survived

http://twitter.com/milesobrien

Alive! Sean O’Keefe and son Jonathan survive Alaska plane crash. Broken bones but survivable.

from the Boeing PR Flacks

http://www.glgroup.com/News/KC-X-Tanker–Contract-Winner-May-Not-Win-All-They-Seek-49878.html

KC-X Tanker: Contract Winner May Not Win All They Seek

It looks inevitable that Airbus’ ability to outprice Boeing could leave a 767 win being an expensive, loss making effort

my heart bleeds with sympathy

It’s a messy game and one that quite frankly needs to be scrapped altogether given the continuous indecision that surrounds it.

yes, we’re being mean to Boeing by forcing them to actually compete. it just isn’t fair!