Posted on 09/15/2016 6:28:48 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing formally challenged a decision by the Danish government to pick Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet over its own Super Hornet, saying on Thursday the choice was based on a "flawed evaluation process".
Boeing said it had submitted a request to the country's ministry of defence that would require it to provide all materials related to the procurement evaluation and decision announced in June.
"We believe the ministry's evaluation of the competitors was fundamentally flawed and inaccurately assessed the cost and capability of the F/A-18 Super Hornet," said Boeing vice president Debbie Rub.
In May Boeing challenged the Danish government's recommendation to buy 27 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, questioning data which suggested its Super Hornet fighter jet was a more expensive option.
A ministry report in May evaluating each fighter jet candidate was based on data estimating that the Super Hornet would have a service life of 6,000 flying hours, while Boeing thinks the right figure for Denmark is 9,500 hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
The Danes chose the other airplane...get over it. The Super Hornet must be a later, improved model of the old F-18 but an old airframe to say the least. The F-35 is newer though not without many problems. Good Luck Denmark.
9,500 hours, that is a lot of “strapping in!
Boeing has a history of doing this every time them lose. I’ll withhold my full opinion on them.
Well governments make flawed choices all the time. They suffer the bad choices.
They do it often, especially when the “facts” are not correct. If the contest is judged with correct facts, they probably would just let things go. In this case, it appears that their entry was not judged using correct values, so they complained, saying “Here are the actual numbers”.
They will also do it when the facts are clearly correct. They carry a lot of political weight.
I am sure performance meant more to their selection process than cost. But these challenges are not fun. I have been there and you have to have good documentation from the selection committee and it has to show that you made your decision with due respect for the process.
Nevertheless, good for Lockheed, (The source of my pension).
Super hornet is actually newer than the 35 moonpig, and its a clean sheet design sharing almost nothing with the original, beyond the name. The USN called it super hornet to get around a law. They sold it as an improved hornet when it’s nothing of the kind.
This is now a standard part of the procurement process. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a budget established for this when the RFP was let. Loser pays might help rein this in.
“almost nothing” except all the aerodynamics. You can’t argue that they ‘clean sheeted’ that.
And no. Not newer. Not even close. It first flew over TWENTY years ago. Over 10 years before the F-35.
Not saying it isn’t a great plane. The Navy seems very happy with it. It was built as an alternative after the A-12 was canceled, not as an F-35 competitor.
“This is now a standard part of the procurement process”
I can see the proposal time line now...
-Receive RFI
-Submit
-Receive RFP
-Submit
-Get results
-Call lawyers
-Whine to customer
-Complain to the press
-Etc.
Shoulda gone SAAB, then Boeing and LockMart could have been equally unhappy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.