irtuskbut if it was more than 1% difference, that`s that, if anybody wanted to complain about that number they should have done so before…
they did complain before
they’ve complained from the very beginning that the RFP was biased towards smaller tankers
the air force wouldn’t budge so the only choice was to either bid anyways or drop out
and NG dropped out
EADS decided to continue alone but they made it clear they weren’t happy with the way the RFP was specified
irtuskI would be fun to see an “educated laymans” explanation of why they went with Boeing.
the projected lifecycle costs were cheaper
Example: Yes, the 330 is a newer aircraft but did that equate into a better product with lower operating costs?
better? yes, it was absolutely more capable as the IFARA scores proved
lower operating cost? probably not
in other words, the Boeing is a fine choice to operate in peacetime when the only thing you care about is cost
in wartime when you actually care about capability, the EADS product is the better choice
irtuskWhats it gonna be called?
as mentioned in the first post
KC-46A
irtuskLet’s face it, EADS was trying to swim in the deep end without its floaties….this decision was for the best. :p
because clearly EADS is an aeronautical neophyte that has not a clue how to build airplanes
irtuskBoeing had enough on their plate with 737 upgrade/replacement, 787 & 747 cert and 777 upgrade. I rather suspect polishing the aeronautical turd that is a 767 with underwing hose pods may prove to be the proverbial straw on the camels back
well it’s not like they actually have to devote any resources to it.
it it runs way behind schedule, so what? it’s not like the AF can turn around and give it to EADS instead
barring a successful protest, the USAF and Boeing are stuck with each other
irtuskwell, what can i say, congratulations on getting the clearly less effective tanker
irtuskhttp://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/four-facts-about-todays-tanker-award?a=1&c=1171
3. The warfighting effectiveness of the Airbus tanker was rated higher than the Boeing plane using a model called the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA). However, the model had to be adjusted so Airbus tankers could accomplish wartime missions, and as a result the Airbus planes were allowed to use bases Boeing was not.
a serious accusation
The Airbus A330 is much bigger than the Boeing 767 — 28 percent heavier, with 40 feet more wingspan — so questions will arise as to how the European company could price its plane competitively with the smaller Boeing offering. Boeing proponents will ask not only how Airbus was able to push the cost of producing each plane so low, but also how the Air Force estimated the life-cycle costs of operating a plane that burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour than the Boeing offering
instead of asking why the EADS offering is so low, maybe we should be asking why the Boeing offering is so high
seriously, if they’re offering a smaller plane and have a significant fuel-burn advantage, why the heck do they cost so much more?
irtuskit’s official
http://www.defense.gov/advisories/advisory.aspx?advisoryid=3319
Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz will announce the KC-X tanker contract award at 5:10 p.m. EST, Feb. 24, in the Pentagon Briefing Room (2E973).
Journalists without a Pentagon building pass will be picked up at the River Entrance only. Plan to arrive no later than 45 minutes prior to the event; have proof of affiliation and two forms of photo identification. Please call 703-697-5131 for escort into the building.
This news conference will also stream live on the Pentagon Channel website, http://www.pentagonchannel.mil, and a transcript will be posted at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts.
irtuskcovers all the major bases
Tanker decision expected Thursday, Feb. 24, 5pm EST
It now appears the USAF will announce the tanker contract Thursday, Feb. 24, at 5pm EST. Expectations are that EADS will be awarded the contract, but there have been so many twists and turns that we’re not predicting the outcome.
. . .
Here is the timeline of what happens next:
* The announcement is made.
* The Department of the Air Force has 10 calendar days to brief the losing side.
* The losing side can request an accelerated debrief.
* The losing competitor then has 10 calendar days from the time of the debrief to file the actual protest with the GAO.
* The GAO then has up to 100 calendar days to rule on the protest (they may take less time).
* The results can be: 1.) GAO finds no merit and throws out the entire protest; 2.) GAO sustains part of the protest; 3.) GAO sustains all of the protest.
* The GAO does not rule on whether or not the Department chose the right aircraft, which aircraft was better, etc. It only rules on whether the proper process was followed during the source selection.
* The Department can then accept the ruling and provide a timeline for how they will address the issues the GAO ruled on and determine whether and how it impacts the outcome. Or, they can note the GAO ruling but proceed as originally planned.
Tanker Award Will Be Announced Thursday
The Air Force will announce the winner of the $35 billion KC-X tanker contract on Thursday, February 24 after financial markets close. Judging from the frequency with which Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter has been talking up the notion of a “globalized” defense market recently, European aerospace giant EADS is the winner.
. . .
EADS is already acting like it has won, which isn’t surprising since it knows its plane received a higher warfighting effectiveness rating. Boeing could challenge the rating methodology and several other facets of the selection process, but since price is the key discriminator in the outcome, it is more likely to pursue a political strategy focusing on EADS use of prohibited trade subsidies in developing and marketing its planes.
irtuskWatchdog clears US Air Force in tanker data mix-up
Inspector General Gordon Heddell said a review by his office showed the Air Force fully complied with federal law after it learned of the data release, and that evidence confirmed the Air Force’s determination that the data release was inadvertent and not a violation of federal law.
In a Feb. 17 letter to seven U.S. senators, Heddell said that Boeing or EADS could take their concerns to the Government Accountability Office, the contracting officer, or federal court if they believed there was impropriety or that they were adversely affected by the events.
Sounds like the data release was not enough for an automatic disqualification, but that there was enough for them to argue their case if they want to
irtuskWord here at the conference is that the contract is likely to be awarded a week from now, almost three years after the last protest. A few sources says it may be the week after.
Boeing believes it has an ace in the hole in the extent of its congressional support . . . “You just have to look at the map,” one source here said
It seems surprising (and perhaps politically stupid) for the USAF to award the contract BEFORE they’ve been given funding in the new budget.
If they do award it to EADS, they’re going to have a lot of trouble getting the funding approved after the fact.
irtuskAustralian Aviation article on KC-30 delays and the boom malfunction
EADS Unlikely to Protest KC-X, Unless
EADS NA board chairman Ralph Crosby said today that his company would not rule out a protest, but that his company was unlikely to file one barring an “egregious process error.”
of course if either company files a protest, they will claim the errors were ‘egregious’, so . . .
Crosby also told reporters this morning that he believes that, once again, the Airbus-based tanker will be cheaper than the Boeing 767. “If it’s not we lose,” he said simply.
He pointed again to the operating cost spread between the EADS and the Boeing planes. For shorter flights the EADS plane would be approximately 15 percent cheaper. For medium-length flights (say from Guam) there would be an almost $3 a gallon difference. For really long-distance refueling flights there would be a spread of almost 45 percent ($28.90 vs. $41.87), Crosby said.
irtuskPratt and Whitney Touts Version of JSF Engine for Bomber
A version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s Pratt and Whitney’s engine might be capable of powering the U.S. Air Force’s prospective new bomber . . . If the long-range strike aircraft is not “as ambitious” as previously envisioned
. . .
Previously, a senior industry official familiar with long-range strike aircraft programs had said both the F-22 Raptor’s F-119 engine and the F-135 consume fuel far too quickly to be used on such a long-endurance strike platform
. . .
The company is developing the PW9000 engine, which uses the F-135 low pressure compressor mated to the core from a geared turbo-fan engine. The engine may be used on the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Launch Surveillance and Strike aircraft
. . .
If the Air Force’s new bomber was more ambitious, the developmental Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) engines being developed under a U.S. government contract by General Electric and Rolls Royce might be applicable
irtuskWhat is so “Next Gen” if it went from 1200 to 900 gpm?
well it was comparable to the boom on the KC-135 (not KC-10), which is nominally the plane KC-X is replacing
apparently it was the controls and envelope and maintenance (how easy it was to fly, how stable in turbulence, how precise movements were, how easy it was to maintain, how reliable it was, how far it could move and maintain a connection, stuff like that)
irtuskJSF Alternative Engine: Waiting For Gates To Go
Having failed to convince Pentagon chief Robert Gates that having two F-35 Joint Strike Fighter candidates on offer is a good idea, what’s the strategy forward for the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine?
“One of the things we need to do is outlast [Gates],” a Rolls executive tells analysts in releasing the company’s 2010 financial results.
F135 vs F136, Here We Go Again
But the main reason for meeting the press seems to have been to get out ahead of the news that, as part of the F-35 development replan within the Pentagon’s 2012 budget, Pratt will receive contracts totalling about a billion dollars for more engines, flight-test support and component improvements.
. . .
The remaining $400 million or so will pay for a “component improvement program [CIP]-like” effort to improve the performance and durability of the F135. This is certain to have GE/Rolls and opponents of the F-35 rubbing their hands and crying “redesign!”
. . .
Boley said the component-improvement work will increase the design margins and robustness of the engine, and particularly the STOVL lift system. He cited changes to the shaft-driven lift fan, clutch and roll posts.
. . .
no amount of explanation is going to prevent accusations that Pratt is getting more money to improve its engine while still in a development program, even as GE/Rolls fight for the funds originally programmed for development of their engine.
F-35 engine won’t be cut from US budget -lawmaker
U.S. House Republicans will not eliminate the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a $515 billion Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year that is due to be unveiled later Friday, a lawmaker who oversees Pentagon funding said.
Sign In
