It is the only contender that can use the existing infrastructure.

false, there are significant construction costs for the KC-767 too

not as much as the KC-30, but to say there are none is flat out wrong

in the end, so what?

the construction cost is included in the bid analysis, so if KC-30+milcon+fuel costs less than KC-767+milcon+fuel, then what are you complaining about?

It is not much bigger than the KC-135 and that is the important part. Ramp space is limited at many forward operating bases for the tanker fleet.

and it’s more capable so it can do more with fewer planes

the ifara score, which is a FAR more sophisticated analysis than anything us armchair logistics experts can do, showed that the KC-30 was still more effective AS A FLEET

and to pfcem, before you come in whining about how ifara “isn’t fair” or how they “cheated”, i have one simple request: proof

you have repeated your claims thousands of times without ONCE offering up any evidence that they are true besides boeing press releases

It does not say Boeing does not see why. Boeing like everyone else knows full well why. What Boeing has stated is that it does not agree with the decision & do not see a legitimate reason for it. You are free to disagree with Boeing but do not be so nieve as to think Boeing does not know why EADS needs an extention.

wheeee!

the Boeing spin machine on full speed!

vs the A330 which is >95% foreign manufactured

watch that spin machine go!

Do you seriously believe EADS would complain about a fixed price SDD &/or state that it did not meet 20% of the requirements if it already had a fully developed product which meet all the requirements?

:rolleyes:

can you be ANY more obvious? seriously

no shouting please NG and Boeing complained about the fixed price aspect

And neither tanker fully meets all the requirements because neither is fully developed yet

However, the proposed tankers (in the proposals, you know) from both sides will meet all the requirements

USAF KC-X Bid Deadline Extended 60 Days

The Pentagon will extend the deadline for bids for the USAF KC-X to July 9, another 60 days for industry to prepare proposals.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/31/tanker-deadline-extended-60-days/

The Pentagon announced today that the KC-X Tanker program will extend the deadline for bids for another 60 days to allow EADS time to submit a bid, if it receives formal notification from EADS of their intention to make an offer.

The new deadline to submit proposals for both Boeing and EADS would be July 9. EADS had asked for 90 days, DOD determined 60 days was a reasonable amount of time, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The military is willing to compress its evaluation time to allow EADS more time to submit its bid.

“We believe we can compress the valuation period somewhat,” he said. Politics is not a part of the process, he emphasized. The extension will not change any of the tanker requirements, Merrill said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/30/eads-will-bid-sarkozy-says/

EADS ‘Will Bid,’ Sarkozy Says

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that the Franco-European defense giant EADS “will bid” on the tanker contract after receiving assurances from President Obama that the competition will be “free and fair.”

In some ways, NG dropping out may be bad news for Boeing as this allows EADS to lower the price even more

UPDATE 1-Pentagon-Still in talks on longer tanker deadline

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2310125020100323

“We are right now engaged in active discussions with the company to better understand the reasons why they would need an extension,” Morrell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

“I would say those discussions are going very well thus far and we have not come to a conclusion, and therefore have not made a decision yet about whether to extend the bidding period any further.”

One source who is closely following the discussions said the Pentagon could announce its decision as soon as Wednesday.

Firm Backs Lawyer at Center of Latest Tanker Controversy

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4549925&c=AIR&s=TOP

A California-based law firm publicly backed one of its partners on March 22, saying John Kirkland had “for months” been working with a Russian firm about bidding for a multibillion-dollar U.S. Air Force aerial tanker contract.

The vote of confidence from Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps came amid denials from Russian government officials and executives at United Aircraft Corp., that the state-owned firm, based in Moscow, would seek the 179-plane tanker deal.

. . .

Later in the day, Luce Forward, in a statement sent to Defense News by firm spokeswoman Rachel Lufkin, backed Kirkland.

“Luce Forward partner John Kirkland was engaged several months ago to negotiate a joint venture with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation,” according to the statement. “The proposed joint venture, UAC America, Inc., planned to bid on American defense projects beginning with the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.”

The statement also said Kirkland “was involved in multiple communications with high level individuals at both UAC and Russia’s Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation regarding the proposed venture.”

The firm said UAC executives, in “documented conversations and written communications,” indicated the proposed joint venture had been approved and indicated “an agreement would be executed shortly.”

The following day, UAC officials told Agence France Presse that the documents were fakes.

In a March 23 statement, the officials referred to documents proffered by Kirkland, including letters about communications between Vladimir Smolko, general director of UAC’s civilian aircraft division, and the U.S. firm, World Aviation Maintenance Company. “The serial numbers (of these letters) refer to completely different documents that were sent to other firms, and not to Mr. Kirkland’s office,” the statement said, according to the March 23 AFP report.

Somebody went through a lot of trouble to set this all up

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2222400920100323?rpc=44

Colorful lawyer says Russia may bid on US defense

Controversy is not new for Kirkland, who was accused of possible fraud by the trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings of Dreier LLP, the now-defunct law firm founded by Marc Dreier, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in connection with a $400 million fraud scheme. Kirkland previously worked at the firm.

Kirkland has been a member of at least half a dozen law firms during his legal career, landing at his current employer, Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, a few years ago.

Kirkland told the Lawdragon website recently that his practice focused mainly on small-cap public companies in emerging growth areas. The profile also said he had “worked with the Russian government on its first-ever insulin manufacturing facility and of course was invited to go wild boar hunting with President Medvedev’s nephew.”

. . .

“It is very important for me that people know I am not just making **** up. I have (in my possession) written letters from UAC on UAC letterheads with UAC control numbers,” Kirkland told Reuters.

. . .

In court documents last June, the Dreier bankruptcy trustee said he suspected Kirkland “may be engaging in misappropriation and fraud” and obtained a court order to examine Kirkland under oath.

On Monday, Joseph Maniscalco, an attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, said the matter concerned a payment remitted to the Dreier firm with no attached invoice. The funds, about $300,000, were made payable to Kirkland individually.

Maniscalco said he interviewed Kirkland about three weeks ago and the trustee is now considering whether to depose him under oath.

“To say the least, he’s not the most cooperative former partner at the Dreier firm,” Maniscalco said.

Kirkland isn’t going down without a fight

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4549138&c=AIR&s=TOP

The denial, he said, “is directly contrary to everything my clients and I have been told by everyone in the Russian Federation,” Kirkland wrote in the letter. “As you know from my prior written communications to you over the last several months, we have been provided with multiple assurances – including via the attached official certified correspondence from UAC, and handwritten comments from Mr. Dmitriev – that the Joint Venture Cooperation Agreement for the KC-X Tanker Modernization Program would be executed shortly.”

The letter is addressed to Sergei Ivanov, chairman of the board of UAC, and Federov, as well as two officials from Russia’s Federal Service of Military Technical Cooperation, Mikhail Dmitriev and Alexander Shishkin.

“We have been repeatedly advised that a presidential decree has been issued from President Dmitry Medvedev, and that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov, Mr. Ivanov and Mr. Dmitriev have all approved the project,” Kirkland’s letter says.

Kirkland wrote, “This weekend [March 20 and 21], I have been on calls” with Russian and UAC officials, including “a Russian general and Mr. Yuri Grudinin, director of regional aircraft directorate at UAC-Civil Aircraft.”

During those calls, “they all confirmed again that the agreement would be signed this Monday morning,” March 22, he wrote.

Kirkland provided a copy of that letter, along with several supporting documents, to Defense News.

Kirkland also said he taped conference calls with Russian military and UAC officials.

According to documents provided by Kirkland, the previously unmanned American firm appears to be Omaha, Neb.-based World Aviation Maintenance Company.

A call to an official there had not been returned at time of this posting.

Asked March 22 whether he feels he has been lied to or duped, Kirkland wrote in an e-mail: “I can’t imagine that’s possible. What would be the point? Seems more likely that something changed over the weekend.”

Kirkland also provided a text message with a 9:31 a.m., March 21, time stamp that appears to come from Sergei Sushenko, whom Kirkland describes as “a native Russian who lives in the U.S.” and has been his firm’s “liason/translator” during conversations with Russian officials.

In that text message, Sushenko passes on a request from Russian officials for Kirkland to get on “an urgent conference call” with them because Airbus allegedly offered UAC $350,000 “to keep them from participating in the bid!”

Airbus is a subsidiary of EADS, which is exploring a possible bid for the 179-plane U.S. Air Force contract. Boeing is expected to bid.

Guy Hicks, a spokesman for EADS North America, denied those claims.

“We deny any interaction with this attorney, as well as any attempts to influence the activities of UAC as it relates to the U.S. tanker program,” Hicks said March 22.

Kirkland’s letter said his law firm had already notified the Pentagon and Air Force about the expected UAC partnership with an existing American firm, and its intention to bid.

Defense officials have yet to confirm or deny such a notification.

Kirkland also provided Defense News with copies of letters from V.V. Smolko, who signed them as the general director of UAC’s civil aircraft division; and documents from World Aviation Maintenance Company officials requesting and confirming receipt of documents needed to finalize the partnership.

The first letter said Putin had “issued a resolution of his approval instructing executing of this [joint venture] cooperation agreement.”

The second letter informed the WAMC official that, once those documents reach Moscow, they will be submitted for Medvedev’s signature.

The same letter paints a picture of Russian officials eager to formalize the arrangement.

“We impatiently expect the moment of the beginning of our joint mutually beneficial business activity,” Smolko wrote, “and we shall be glad when you will accept our invitation to visit our corporation in Russia.”

Maybe he was the target of an elaborate scam where they were planning to have him put up a large sum of money, but Kirkland went public, blowing up the scheme?

(being as generous to Kirkland as I can here . . .)