Posted on 07/09/2008 12:15:52 PM PDT by jazusamo
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced Wednesday that Northrop Grumman and Boeing will have to submit revised proposals for the Air Force’s highly contested aerial refueling tanker program.
The Pentagon chief's decision comes after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld Boeing's protest of the Air Force's decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS North America, the parent company of Boeing rival Airbus.
“I have concluded that the contract cannot be awarded,” Gates said at a Pentagon news conference. Northrop Grumman won the heated competition on Feb. 29, but is currently under a stop-work order.
The decision means Boeing could win the contract. After it lost the initial decision, it opened a risky lobbying and public relations battle against the Air Force’s decision in the hope of overturning it.
The Pentagon had 60 days to decide how to heed the GAO's recommendations, but intense pressure from Capitol Hill likely sped up the decision by several weeks. Congress is to hear testimony on the GAO report on Thursday.
Boeing's congressional supporters used the GAO's ruling to push the Pentagon to reopen the competition. In its report, GAO said the Air Force made "significant errors" in its selection process.
Gates said John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer and a former Senate Appropriations Defense staff member, would be in charge of the tanker selection. Air Force officials were in charge when the contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman.
The Air Force will still be in charge of the program once a contractor is selected, Gates said.
Young said that the Pentagon will issue a draft request for proposals that will address all of the GAO's findings. The Pentagon is not starting the competition from scratch but is asking the bidders to modify their proposals to address the GAO concerns. Young stressed that he wanted to see as few areas as possible changed in the request for proposals.
The Pentagon will issue the draft request at the end of the month or the beginning of August. Young expects to select the winner by the end of the year.
Young was not clear how the Pentagon will handle the fact that a contract already was signed with Northrop.
Gates said that he hoped the Pentagon's way forward on the tanker program would restore confidence among lawmakers who have been increasingly critical of the Air Force's ability to select a new tanker — the service's No. 1 priority.
If you claim something the burden is up on you to find something supporting your claim.
2CAVTrooper asked “And by any chance can you tell me when the first flight of the KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker) was?”
“Italy's first aircraft made its maiden flight on May 21,
2005, “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
The proposed USAF KC-767 is nothing more than a modified Japan or Italy model like any other aircraft we have in the inventory.
So you and Boeing can put together a cockpit with different avionics with an on old fuselage with newer wings. Just the flaps will correspond to the cockpit.
You and Boeing won't need a new type certification for this aircraft?
Try to provide a source that KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker) won't need a type certification and we are through.
Up until now I join in:
Never build,
never flown,
never tested.
Once a airframe has a faa cert when you make a modification it is a simple cert.
as in
B-52a
b-52b
b-52c
b-52d e,f
B-52g & h
Kc-135a
KC-135R. did not take long for those to get certed after inital certs.
Where is the FAA cert on the KC-45.
you know hte one that has not passed gas and does not have a boom.
RAAF KC-30B are Airbus 330-203.
It may be easy to certify a KC-767AT but that won't make 767-200LRF an existing airframe.
Never build,
never flown,
never tested.
And, February 18 should be "The first operational KC-767A was delivered to Japan on February 19, 2008, with the second KC-767 following on March 5."
Also see at:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/program/japan.html
for Boeing IDS report.
That link is for the COMMERCIAL plane NOT the KC-45.
That link says NOTHING to support your claims.
“a single aircrew member post a possitive blog about that POS.”
Really? Where are the links?
“Fogelman is a independent consultant.”
WHO IS PAID BY BOEING
“And yes all of those Generals where employed by EADS/NG.”
NO, out of the 22 generals, only 9 had affiliations with with Northrop Grumman OR EADS. So stop exaggerating.
“You must be A paid EADS hack as all you can do is put the LOTION ON and Drink The EADS KOOL AID and spew the crap line.”
Same can be said about you and your word for word posting of Boeing talking points.
“KC-767AT first flight 21 dec 2006. and guess what its FAA certified. and its boom works.”
WRONG!!!!!!!
The first flight was for the basic KC-767, NOT the KC-767AT
The KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker) doesn’t even exist beyond some artists drawings.
“Go back and check your facts on the slush money. that was a total. not just this year.”
I did check my facts, and all it did was show that you’re using bloated figures.
“Face it, the EADS plane cannot do the Job. Period. Its Unable to perform emegency proceedures, and cannot refuel certain aircraft.”
Says who? Boeing?
“And yes I have worked, preflighting, flight planning and flying on Aircraft for over 25 years. Thats what 25 more years than you.”
Doesn’t mean that you know what your talking about.
“Try any of the following. and it has been delivered and has a operating boom that has passed alot more gas than the OTHER ONE.”
LIAR.
There is no KC-767AT
The planes that were delivered (2 years LATE) were basic KC-767’s. They were NOT the Advanced Tanker that Boeing offered the Air Force.
The first and second KC-45’s have already flown.
The A330MRTT (which hte KC-45 is based) has already transferred fuel inflight through both the boom and drouge system.
WHAT EVER EADS HACK.
There is no KC-767AT
The planes that were delivered (2 years LATE) were basic KC-767’s. They were NOT the Advanced Tanker that Boeing offered the Air Force.
Delivered late Due to Japan wanting FAA certification.
And how far behind is the A330MRTT.
The first and second KC-45’s have already flown.
Flown to Germany to get fitted for CARGO conversion that the KC-767 already has.
The A330MRTT (which hte KC-45 is based) has already transferred fuel inflight through both the boom and drouge system.
Just like the KC-767 for Japan and Italy They have Flown and are delivered. which the KC-767AT is derived from.
You also have to differ between the Japanese KC-767J and the Italian KC-767A. The KC-767J got no pods for hose-and-drogue system. Boeing only delivered a 767-CTA to Italy so far.
http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-boeing-767-delivered-to-the-italian-air-force/
The lease deal probably would have been more profitable to Boeing had it run over the life of the system but I doubt that was ever the plan. the UK leased a handful of C-17s and soon (as funds became available) turned that into a buy, and I think added aircraft to it. That would have taken place with US tankers as well.
The RAF lease deal was for 7 years. UK decided to buy one C-17 and 4 leased C-17 at the end of the current contract. The US lease deal was differently with a longer duration and worse conditions.
About one thing I'm wondering. The idea was to use an existing aircraft as base for the new tanker. EADS offered one while Boeing offered a non existing version of 767.
June 2008
The first Airbus A330 had arrived in Australia for conversion to a KC-30B Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) under Project AIR 5402.
The aircraft, which is the first of four Airbus A330s to be modified in Australia, arrived at the Qantas Australian Conversion Centre at Brisbane Airport after departing the Airbus facility in Toulouse, France.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/2008/jun08/nb2.cfm
Don't mix up first for conversion with first A330 MRTT for Australia. Australia's first tanker is already converted and flying.
Just like the KC-767 for Japan and Italy They have Flown and are delivered. which the KC-767AT is derived from.
The KC-767 for Italy have not been delivered yet. See my last post above.
Delivered late Due to Japan wanting FAA certification.
The Royal Australian Air Force's first KC-30B Multi-role Tanker/Transport is being readied for its final phase of ground and flight testing, which will clear the way for a 2009 delivery of the world's most advanced aerial tanker platform to a key U.S. ally.
The KC-30B successfully completed Phase I flight testing in just three months earlier this year. During Phase I, the MRTT flight envelope was explored and expanded, aerodynamic and performance data gathered, and aircraft handling qualities validated with the full-up aerial refueling boom and wing pod systems installed. The KC-30B achieved all Phase I objectives, including demonstration that the modified aircraft is free from buffet and flutter throughout the flight envelope. The Phase 1 testing obtained all test data required to support civil certification by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
Certification by EASA may include the required speed limits for US Air Force.
“KC-767AT is derived from” is not correct. “KC-767AT will be derived from” or “KC-767AT may be derived from.” is better.
Never build,
never flown,
never tested.
Boeing to stick with KC-767 for US tanker recompete
FARNBOROUGH 2008: EADS to offer unchanged aircraft in relaunched KC-X contest
Awwww, can’t support your claims?
I asked you when was the first flight of the KC-767AT.
You intentionally tried to mislead people by posting the first flight dates for the less capable KC-767 as sold to Japan and Italy because the KC-767AT that was offered to the Air Force DOES NOT EXIST beyond a few drawings, artists conceptions, and CGI animations.
As to the period and conditions of a lease; I think the whole concept was that the lease would never go to term, that a purchase would replace it at first opportunity.
Prices and terms I know nothing about but I have seen USG 'negotiators' lock tight at the mere mention of 'profit', I've heard them swear they were being cheated when a truck load of audit information said otherwise, and I know they stiff the donatons jar when the doughnuts are brought around.
“Delivered late Due to Japan wanting FAA certification.
And how far behind is the A330MRTT.”
FAA certification was only a small part of it. The biggest part was DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.
The A330MRTT (KC-45) is closer than the proposed KC-767AT since the plane is already flying meaning it already has an airworthiness certificate because it’s based on the already existing and certified A330-200F.
“Flown to Germany to get fitted for CARGO conversion that the KC-767 already has.”
The KC-767 has to be flown to Kansas for conversion.
“Just like the KC-767 for Japan and Italy They have Flown and are delivered. which the KC-767AT is derived from.”
The KC-767AT is a totally different jet than the basic KC-767.
The KC-767AT is based on the equally non existant 767-200ERF that will use the -400 wing and cockpit cobbled together with the -200 fuselage.
Here is what Boeing’s own tanker program spokesman said just last year:
“We’ve described the platform as a 767-200LR freighter. It will be a derivative of that and it is a freighter that doesn’t exist yet. I would hope this leads you to say it’s
advanced. It’s derivative of something that doesn’t exist yet,”
IMO:
The above is the Point and it is why I am so angry about the entire drama. Regardless of the whole lease fiasco, I maintain the first 150 or so KC-767 ought to be being delivered now, and this contract should have been for the follow-on contract to replace the remainder of the KC-135 fleet.
I could careless if EADS/NG won (though I think the fix was in against Boeing) but the second set of tankers ought to be going into production with this contract not the original first set.
The lease was probably a bad idea, but my impression was the lease was supposed to move the delivery date way up because the KC-135’s were falling apart, well many years later here were are, still six months minimum from a new contract much less a new tanker. $@*!@*@$@$!!
Add one more to the list that makes it HARD to even think about a McCain vote this November.
New rules for second KC-X competition create controversy
The US Department of Defense will reopen the competition for the KC-X contract with two major changes to the evaluation criteria that are already being challenged by Boeing supporters in Congress.
The Pentagon's controversial changes will assign rankings to the 808 individual requirements in the contract solicitation - with a special focus on downplaying the value of life-cycle cost estimates for maintenance and fuel -- and clarify the US Air Force's desire for greater fuel off-load capacity than now provided by the ageing KC-135E fleet.
Both changes would do nothing to undercut the premise of the USAF's original decision to award the contract to the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America KC-30B, a larger aircraft than the Boeing KC-767. USAF officials credited the KC-30B's larger size as a prime factor in their decision.
For “life-cycle cost estimates” I found an interesting article down under.
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-AAR-Mar-04.pdf
The economics of tanker fleet operation are not driven by airframe maintenance alone. Recent studies into ageing aircraft problems carried out in the US by the Air Force and Navy indicate that the single biggest cost factors in older aircraft are engine maintenance costs and obsolescence of unique parts. The US KC-135 fleet rode on the back of the retiring 707 fleet, seeing large numbers of common components and JT3D engines cannibalised. The exhaustion of this pool of cheap spares is in part driving the current plans to replace the JT3D powered KC-135Es. The KC-135 is an interesting case study in that it has spent much of its service life to date feeding off the commercial 707 fleet, which resulted in exceptional economies of scale in spare parts.
[...]
Experience in the US with both the 20 year old KC-10 and 40 year old KC-135 suggests that the collapse of the parallel commercial fleets has had a large impact on operating costs, especially due to the rapid increase in the prices of high consumption spares.
What does that tells us about future costs for an aircraft with an almost closed production line for commercial aircrafts and on the other side an aircraft with a backlog of over 400 units and more than 500 options (- A350/787-9)?
According to Wiki, there have been 965 767s built as of June 2008, and 550 Airbus A330s as of June 2008. With orders still to be filled, the Airbus will be close to the 767 numbers by the time both aircraft are officially out of production.
Also in the A330s favor is the limited commonality with the A340.
There are much more 757 left than A340 but cannibalization is last possibility then support for commercial fleet is stalled.
I guess normal support for A330 will proceed 10 years longer than for 767. We'll see how Air Force will take that into account.
A KC-45 fleet can profit from improvements for ongoing A330 production like the now offered new engines PW4000-100 Advantage70 or GEnX. Will there be any commercial improvements for 767?
Orders for 767 this year so far: Zero
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm
Oh well I’m sure that the Congress and Senate will kill the Scarebus anyway especially after the DOD is Changing the RFP again.
Kill the French P.O.S. Save american jobs and give us the Tanker that was requested in the Original RFP.
And that is what alot of air crews are saying on different Tanker blogs. Let alone at the Base Clubs.
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.