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.
I have:
According to U.S. Transportation Dept. data, the Airbus A330 model that Air France flies between Paris and JFK burns an average 12% less fuel per passenger than the 767 does on a similar flight.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb2008062_062876.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories
As I already tried to show you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2033624/posts?page=138#138
The “Conklin & de Decker” study ordered by Boeing is just worthless because Boeing still hides the study where the 24% originate from.
Next thing is both aircrafts operate at MTOW. In this case a A330 carries 30% more PAX, cargo or fuel. A full KC-45 carries 32 463L pallets compared to 19 on KC-767. The difference in cargo volume between both tanker fleets are about 130 C-17. Value about $28 billion. A C-17 guzzles about twice as much as both tanker aircrafts.
According to Boeing these 24% are about $44 billion. So 100% are $180 billion scaled to a fleet of 130 aircrafts you'll save $133 billion for not fueling the C-17.
- 44
+ 28
+133
====
$144 billion saved.
The calculations by “Conklin & de Decker” are no way better.
And the GAO just didn't elect to make that an issue to dispute the USAF procurement team's confabulations derived from bigger size efficiencies...they had them dead to rights on many other issues.
No, Boeing's protest on this point was rejected.
So you're done then? Good.
You don't see the difference, do you?
Staff of EADS may have bribed several countries but not their home country like Darleen Druyun and Michael M. Sears did.
Insider trading investigation
On June 2, 2006 co-CEO Noël Forgeard and Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert resigned following the controversy caused by the June 2006 announcement that deliveries of the A380 would be delayed by a further six months. Forgeard was one of a number of executives who exercised stock options in November 2005 and March 2006. He and 21 other executives are under investigation as to whether they knew about the delays in the Airbus A380 project which caused a 26% fall in EADS shares when publicised.[35]
The French government’s actions are also under investigation; The stated-owned bank Caisse des Dépots et Consignations (CDC) bought part of Lagardère’s 7.5% stake in EADS in April 2006, allowing that latter to partially escape the June 2006 losses.[35]
In June 2008, law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of U.S. citizens who purchased the publicly traded stock of EADS.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKPAC00871720071003
yep they did it there own country but far worse than the 2 knuckleheads who tried. the eads folks did it. and got caught.
Insider trading didn't heart anyone except share holders. Neither the company nor any country is affected. Every US citizen would have payed $25 to much for the Boeing lease deal.
Insider trading didn’t heart anyone except share holders. Neither the company nor any country is affected. Every US citizen would have payed $25 to much for the Boeing lease deal.
oh yes it does and did overall it degrades the stocks and reputation.
as for the lease deal it did not cost us. it cost those knuckleheads time and money.
The leaders of France, Germany and Britain personally lobbied President Bush over a controversial $35bn contract for US air force aerial refuelling tankers that was originally awarded to a team that included a European aerospace firm but is now being re-competed.
The White House confirmed yesterday that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had all raised the tanker issue with Bush.
But White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush made clear to all three that the decision was up to the Pentagon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/17/eads.georgebush
Cease and Desist?: Northrop Grumman will no longer be able to refer to its KC-30 tanker as the KC-45A in advertisements and press releases, an Air Force spokeswoman told the Daily Report yesterday. USAF created the nomenclature KC-45A to refer to its next tanker aircraft, but now that the KC-X competition is back up for grabs, neither Boeing nor Northrop Grumman can claim the KC-45A designation—not yet, at least. The Air Force has not yet notified Northrop Grumman to quit calling its airplane the KC-45A, “but the Air Force will do so and we expect that they will [comply],” the spokeswoman said. Randy Belote, Northrop’s VP for communications, told the Daily Report from London yesterday that he was not aware of any directive from the Air Force to stop using the KC-45 designation. He said Northrop remains “under contract with the Air Force on the KC-45 program,” albeit under the stop-work order that was imposed after Boeing’s legal protest in March. “As winner of the KC-X program and while under contract for the KC-45, we have no plans to change the name or nomenclature of our tanker,” he said.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/default.aspx
from the 17 July 2008.
Insider trading hasn’t hurt them right.. How much has France, Germany and UK lost from that insider trading. Looks like there stock is nose diving hard. Good thind BAE sold theres in time.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EAD.PA
The Tanker Formerly Known As KC-45 (TTFKAK).
The Tanker Formerly Known As KC-45 (TTFKAK).
Is this a end to the ending or just a ending the end.
Saturn V you say. Do you know what NASA stands for?
National Aeronautic ands Space Agency
They have always done research to benefit aviation.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-15-DFRC.html
The concept of winglets originated with a British aerodynamicist in the late 1800s, but the idea remained on the drawing board until rekindled in the early 1970s by Dr. Richard Whitcomb when the price of aviation fuel started spiraling upward.
Whitcomb, a noted aeronautical engineer at the NASA Langley Research Center, refined the winglet concept with wind tunnel tests and computer studies. He then predicted that transport-size aircraft with winglets would realize improved cruising efficiencies of between 6% and 9%. A winglet flight test program at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center in 1979-80 validated Whitcomb’s research when the test aircraft — a military version of the Boeing 707 jetliner — recorded an increased fuel mileage rate of 6.5%.
Please get that one straight before you continue your EADS PR distribution duties.
If that were to happen there would be riots in the streets of Paris and Berlin.
Next time someone complains about Patty Murray standing up for her states largest employer I would like to reference this.
It is interesting that the Alabama folks are so hard on Boeing who has employed thousands in the state for years (don't they know Huntsville is part of Alabama).
Have you looked at he pricing of a bare bones A330f without refueling equipment installed, which is what there KC-30 is going to be based on vs the price of a KC-767 fitted out.
us dollars a330f——136.6-145.5 million (2003 figure) no ar
equipment installed
kc-767-—130-150 million outfiited with ar
equipment
must be able to discount them scarebuses with all that slush money loans.
You're dreaming
For the basic freighter birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330: A330-200F $175M (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767: 767-300F: $151-162 million (for the closest model to the 767-bitzer listed there)
And Airbus has already paid for the development, Boeing hasn't - figure on adding at least $10M to the unit
“The EADs plane was not so well equipped or survivable as the Boeing”
Says who Boeing?
“inferior antiquated FBW system”
BS, the FBW system has to meet military specifications.
“So you are just plain wrong.”
Keep dreaming.
“It isn’t a government subsidy if you get a product for the money.”
It IS a government subsidy if the money is spent to keep the production line of an OBSOLETE aircraft running.
Boeing has been talking for years about closing the 767 line to concentrate on 787 production IF there were no orders for the 767 to fill beyond 2007. UPS ordered a bunch of freighters, so now the projected line closure is in 2015.
So the USAF would be subsidizing the A330 production line after the A350 comes out.
In reality the commercially successful 767 (almost 1000 units built) will be subsidizing the USAF, who will get a protein airframe and not have to pay the full development cost (about $10B in current dollars).
Doesn't change the fact that the site parrots Boeing's talking points either.
Nor does it change the fact that CFSP received numerous donations from Boeing. In fact CFSP's own Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) AKA "The Senator from Boeing".
try again look at KC-767. it covers it.
eads price does not include ar equipment.
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.