irtuskYou just gave the reason why Iran should develop nuclear weapons to defend itself.
so iran should have nukes to protect itself from being attacked for having nukes?
irtuskthe only way to really destroy iran’s nuke program would be to destroy the nation
attack power plants, ports, oil facilities, anything that will have a substantial economic impact
then iran will no longer have the capability to continue
of course the collateral damage from such a campaign would be unacceptably high, but that’s how you would do it
irtuskhttp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4735873&c=AME&s=AIR
DoD: U.S. Aerospace Protest Won’t Force KC-X Delay
A protest filed by U.S. Aerospace alleging the U.S. Air Force unfairly rejected its bid for a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract will not force the Defense Department to delay a contract decision slated for this fall, says DoD spokesman Geoff Morrell.
“I can tell you the awarding of this contract is still scheduled for this fall,” Morrell told Defense News in an Aug. 5 e-mail.
. . .
“Our proposal was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers, i.e. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and was effectively under the Government’s control prior to 2:00 pm, the time set for receipt of offers, because the messenger was following the instructions of Air Force as to what to do and where to go with the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal should be considered as part of the source selection.”
. . .
“The conduct of some Air Force personnel – such as repeatedly leaking information to the press, granting one bidder [EADS] a 60-day extension but denying any extension to [U.S. Aerospace], intentionally delaying advising us that it would not be granted an extension, and intentionally delaying sending us the information disks needed to prepare the proposal – give rise to an appearance of impropriety regarding the conduct of some members of the Air Force,” according to the documents.
irtuskUS Aerospace/Atonov Protest: A Peek at the KC-X Protest
. . .
So, one of the questions that is likely to be addressed as GAO reviews the protest is at what point the USAF had “control” over the proposal.
Was it when the messenger stepped onto the base? I’d suspect that when it comes to matters of security, the Air Force would say its personnel have control over all people on their bases. When it comes to a contracting matter, it may be different.
Apparently, Air Force officials subsequently told a company representative that delays at installation gates are common (and they are — I’ve been subject to more than a few), and that the company should have anticipated this potential snag and planned appropriately.
But, the U.S. Aerospace argument is that Air Force personnel “intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering the proposal in order to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues” with the principal supplier, Ukrainian state owned Antonov, according to the industry executive.
If this is proven to be true, it will bring the KC-X competition and the entire U.S. Air Force acquisition system to its knees after and already rough decade of missteps and scandals.
Another issue likely to arise during the review process is whether the Air Force was responsive to requests from U.S. Aerospace to the classified documents required to provide a fully responsive bid.
The U.S. Aerospace argument is that the Air Force took a week or more to provide the documentation required for the company to respond to its bid. The Air Force, however, has a rigid process for such communications and asked the company to resubmit its request through an official process channel. The net result was that the company had less time to review the materials and respond to the RFP.
On this matter, the Air Force is likely to argue that the processes for bidders are set — as laid out in the FAR — and the service is unable to budge from them.
irtuskNeither Boeing nor EADS/Airbus will have any trouble whatsoever producing enough frames for KC-X, it simply isn’t an issue
irtuskhttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/08/kc-x-competition-hit-by-gao-pr.html
KC-X competition hit by GAO protest
US Aerospace Inc could halt the KC-X tanker competition after filing a protest with the US Government Accountability Office. The California-based company says in a new regulatory filing that the US Air Force has tossed the company out of the competition for submitting a bid late. The fact that the bid is based on a twin-jet powered version of the Antonov An-70 apparently did not factor into the USAF’s decision. Here’s an excerpt from the US Aerospace filing with the US Securities Exchange Commission today:
Our proposal was hand delivered on July 9, 2010. The messenger arrived at the government installation, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, well before 1:30 pm, more than half an hour before the 2:00 pm deadline. Air Force personnel initially denied the messenger entry to the base, then gave incorrect directions to 1755 Eleventh Street Building 570, and finally instructed the messenger to wait where he was for Air Force personnel to come and get him. He at all times complied with the instructions of Air Force personnel, from the time he arrived at the installation until the proposal was taken by Air Force personnel at the program building. Although the proposal was arbitrarily marked received at 2:05 pm, it was under Air Force control before the bid deadline.
irtuskprevious story updated
UPDATE: U.S. Aerospace filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office Aug. 2 citing “unreasonable” conduct by the U.S. Air Force. According to an industry executive, the company’s messenger arrived at the Wright-Patterson AFB gate at 1:30 p.m. July 9 (30 minutes before the deadline) and was denied entry, given bad directions and told to wait by Air Force personnel. As a result, the Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 p.m.
Could it be that five minutes brings this KC-X schedule to its knees?
irtuskOnly Two Bids for KC-X — US Aerospace/Antonov is OUT
Bids to compete for the program — 179 KC-135 replacements estimated to be worth $35 billion — were due at 2 p.m. EST at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Apparently, the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid didn’t make it in time.
“Those deadlines count,” says Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary. “They mean something … They are there for a reason and any professional contractor knows that.”
EADS submitted its bid a day early, and dispatched two copies — one by air and one by land. Boeing’s bid was received at about 9 a.m. on July 9, Morrell says. He declined to say when paperwork from U.S. Aerospace/Antonov arrived, if at all.
“The proposal was late and by law we are not allowed to consider it,” Morrell says. “We are considering two proposals and U.S. Aerospace is not one of those being considered.”
On March 31, the Pentagon announced a 60-day extension to the due date for proposals; EADS requested an extension after its former prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, abruptly walked away from the team. “Any serious bidder had at least 120 days in which to get their bids together,” Morrell says.
Arnold, however, insisted as recently as last night to Aviation Week that its company had submitted a bid and “if considered” would win.
He did not promptly return a call for comment about Morrell’s statements
irtusk
The Mysterious Third Bidder for KC-X … A Potential Protestor?
Chuck Arnold, an advisor to the company, says if — and he used the word IF– the competition is fair and open, US Aerospace and Antonov will have the lowest price. He says they have a better boom than those offered by EADS and Boeing. He declined to disclose who makes this boom, but boasted it can offload at 1,600 gallons per minute; USAF only wants 1,200 GPM.
But, all this talk of potential disqualification smells like a potential protest in the works. “If our plane is looked at, we will be selected,” Arnold said, adding that he expects “obstacles” for the company in competing.
Arnold also said that the small size of US Aerospace — the company lists fewer than 30 employees on some SEC filings — is a benefit. It will cut down on overhead and allow for the licensing of companies stateside to handle the legwork, he said. Arnold declined to identify those companies.
He also declined to provide any aircraft design details, citing a nondisclosure agreement with Antonov. But, he says that more information is expected to be released at the end of September.
However, if the team is eyeing a protest it will delay an already protracted, nearly decade-long attempt by the USAF at buying KC-135 replacements.
So … back to this idea of bid requirement compliance. The Pentagon still has not answered questions on how bid compliance is determined. Is there a “quick look” process, as one industry official suggested, where the Air Force does a basic sniff test on bids to make sure there are no glaring problems? And, if there is, is the service required to notify the bidder that he is noncompliant and out of the competition promptly, or simply at the end of the competition?
This will be the crux of handling the US Aerospace Antonov issue; if the company is already predicting being thrown out, the question now seems to be not if the team protests, but when.
irtuskhttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/25/344917/farnborough-antonov-awaits-usaf-response-to-kc-x-bid.html
FARNBOROUGH: Antonov awaits USAF response to KC-X bid
“Not yet”. That is the line from Antonov on whether it has received a response to its shock last-minute bid for the US Air Force’s KC-X tanker contest early this month.
“This is the first opportunity for us to bid in such a tender in the USA,” says Antonov president general designer Dmitry Kyva. Teamed with US Aerospace, it has submitted a bid based on the proposed An-112KC.
WOW
that’s the first time i’ve seen a quote from the Antonov side, I figured it was just another scam by Kirkland, but I guess it’s time to eat some crow.
(unless that wasn’t the REAL Dmitry Kyva ::conspiracy:: )
“It is very difficult for us to evaluate our chances,” he says, but adds: “Our aircraft meets all the requirements.”
Kyva describes the Ukrainian company’s surprise venture into the 179-aircraft KC-X battle as “a new experience”. It hopes to receive a response allowing it to go forward in the contest, against the Boeing KC-767 NewGen Tanker and EADS North America KC-45, but he comments: “We will not be too upset if we don’t.”
Obviously hasn’t mastered PR speak, that’s a strange thing to say.
irtuskhttp://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=45726&oref=todaysnews
Norm Dicks, D-Wash., is preparing a fiscal 2011 Defense spending bill that defense sources expect will not include funding to buy more Boeing C-17 cargo planes or to keep alive an alternate engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
. . .
On the F-35 engine issue, Dicks could face stiff opposition within his subcommittee over his stance on the aircraft’s alternate engine, built by General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce Group. Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney builds the primary engine for the fighter jets.
The subcommittee’s backers of the alternate engine could challenge Dicks with an amendment during next week’s markup that would add funding for the program Gates wants to terminate, sources said.
“I suspect there will be a discussion on that issue,” Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Rep. C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., said Tuesday.
irtuskFARNBOROUGH: Boeing hints at KC-767 NewGen Tanker design
In a huddle with reporters after a press briefing, a Boeing executive offered the most tangible hint to date that the KC-767 NewGen Tanker blends major structural components from different aircraft models.
Charles Johnson, Boeing vice president of air force mobility, told reporters during the briefing that it will not be “easy” for EADS North America to adapt the KC-45 with cockpit armour and defensive systems.
Asked afterward if Boeing could reassure the public that the KC-767 NewGen Tanker would require less challenging design changes, Johnson said he could.
A reporter noted that Boeing’s KC-767 design featured a wing and fuselage from different aircraft models, which would seem to pose a greater redesign challenge than integrating defensive systems and cockpit armour.
Johnson replied that “it’s pretty straightforward actually” to install a wing from a different model on to the 767-200 fuselage.
. . .
In response to questions, Muilenburg revealed the KC-767 NewGen Tanker includes a boom based on the hardware of the KC-10 and upgraded with fly-by-wire controls developed for the KC-767s purchased by Italy and Japan.
Boeing had previously indicated the system includes fly-by-wire, but had not disclosed the system for KC-X came from the Italian and Japanese tankers.
irtuskBoeing: Italian Tankers Ready For Final Checks
Following a series of technical problems that have delayed Boeing’s delivery of four 767 tankers to Italy, the firm and its customer appear optimistic that the hitches are behind them and that deliveries are pending.
After first promising delivery in 2005, Boeing needed to fix a vibration problem with a wing pylon on the aircraft and then tackle a stability problem on the centerline hose and drogue.
The final procedure before handover, the so-called Tender for Acceptance in which Italian crews check the aircraft, has repeatedly slipped.
Good news for Boeing. The failure to deliver the simpler Italian tanker had been hanging over their heads for quite a while.
irtuskhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/19/boeing-mum-on-glass-cockpit/
Boeing Mum On Glass Cockpit
One source tells us categorically that Boeing did not include the cockpit in its bid. We pressed Boeing spokesmen on the issue and they referred us to the July 9 press statement announcing their bid. It says their new tanker includes “a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.”
. . .
It is clearly a highly sensitive issue for them as they have proven deeply reluctant to discuss any details of the cockpit, especially the risks — or lack thereof– of integrating the new systems on the 767. It is, they aver, competition sensitive.
One Boeing source pointed us to the press release and said, “that’s as far as we will go.”
also there’s a link to this video:
Meanwhile, Boeing continued to hammer away at the larger size and weight of the EADS NA offering, the modified A330. It is, Boeing tanker guru Chuck Johnson noted during his briefing today, 40 tons heavier than the Boeing offering. With that comes higher fuel costs and swelling milcon costs, Boeing claims. Below, you’ll find a short film illustrating Boeing’s main points.
irtuskI converted it to PDF:
thanks!
Sign In
