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.
Donier is now owned by EADS.
I think Boeing doesn't have a clue either what's exactly inside the boxes provided by Northrop-Grumman.
Service and maintenance is not ZERO experience.
Changing little black boxes and minor servicing is not AWACS experiance its BASIC AIRCRAFT SERVICING. Oil, gas tires, wash wax, changing windows. minor panel repairs and paint. Thats about all they are allowed to do. Any big electronic upgrades are done by a certified DEPOT, guess what there is ONLY 1. Thats Tinker AFB. Oklahoma.
designing, building and producing a flyable operations AWACS airplane is.
Hense the problem with the 737 Wedgetail. NG equip does not interface with others equipment. And they have NG and Boeing aussie working it and could not figure it out and had to send them back to the USA for NG and Boeing to Figure out. And its not just Boeings equipment that is not interfacing with.
Doniers mistake was going to EADS. Also every 3 to 4 years all E-3 AWACS make a trip to TINKER for FULL Depot Maint. That is where they get all of there upgrades.
From your source:
“Depot Level Maintenance (DLM) of materiel and equipment”
“The NAMSO Board of Directors (BOD) comprises senior representatives from the Defence Ministries of the NAMSO nations. “
That doesn't exclude that EADS is servicing and maintaining the NATO AWACS fleet. So EADS has experience.
You are still wrong with your original claim.
That doesn’t exclude that EADS is servicing and maintaining the NATO AWACS fleet. So EADS has experience.
You are still wrong with your original claim.
How do figure EADS has experiance
1. ARE THEY BUILDING ONE.. = NO
2. Do they have a contrract =NO
so the big answer is NO NO NO
show me a sourse as you say to backk your claim
Check E-3 AWACS depot.. gues what its TINKER.
There is NO EADS.. NONE zip ZIPPO.. The USAF and Boeing aint gonna let A foriegn company work on any us AWACS, and Boeing has the Contract for the AWACS upgrades at tinker for ALL including NATO AWACS planes.
Installing a IFF transponder is not What anyone would call AWACS experiance.
as that is the only contract EADS has done to the E-3.
http://www.deagel.com/AEWandC-ISR-and-EW-Aircraft/E-3-Sentry_a000541001.aspx
listing of upgrades by contractors.
How do figure EADS has experiance
1. ARE THEY BUILDING ONE.. = NO
2. Do they have a contrract =NO
so the big answer is NO NO NO
show me a sourse as you say to backk your claim
You try to redefine “experience”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience
EADS implemented ESM systems on NATO AWACS. EADS has to control attachment of the radome to the aircraft.
Your claim is wrong.
EADS implemented ESM systems on NATO AWACS. EADS has to control attachment of the radome to the aircraft.
Your claim is wrong.
prove it
Where is your source. as you like to say.
EADS implemented ESM systems on NATO AWACS. EADS has to control attachment of the radome to the aircraft
think you better read this link
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/paris2005/assets/ids_pdfs/E-3%20AWACS%20BCKGR%20March%202005.pdf
installed only a iff transponder.
You try to redefine “experience”.
No you like to twist things around.
Experiance in aircraft terms. you have many years of knowledge working on them building them or operating them
NONE OF WHICH EADS HAS.
The original question was does EADS have any experiance building them. period no eads lotion required on that one..
And something else:
DE [EADS Defense Electronics] is in charge of sensor fusion software on NATO AWACS E3A and the similar Australian “Wedgetail” and the Turkish “Peace Eagle” programmes.
http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/6/13/41983136.pdf
Wikipedia
It says Dorneir not eads as in the past they had a contract for servicing. prior to EADS.
DE [EADS Defense Electronics] is in charge of sensor fusion software.
Not on the E-3 awacs upgrade page. so sorry. not .
“So the USAF would be subsidizing the A330 production line after the A350 comes out.”
No, because the A330-200F will remain in production for at least a decade due to competition with the Boeing 767F and 777F. And once the production line moves here, the A330 will be priced the same if not cheaper than either one of Boeing’s offerings.
“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).”
Same can be said for the A330MRTT/KC-30/KC-45.
As of June, Airbus isn’t too far behind with 975 A330’s ordered which isn’t bad since the 767 has been in production for almost a decade longer.
He’s not going to listen.
He tries to claim that the baseline KC-767 is the same as the KC-767AT as offered to the Air Force despite proof to the contrary. Hell, Boeing’s own mouthpiece even stated that the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT doesn’t even exist.
I’m still waiting for him to post links to those blogs he claims where tanker crews are stating that they will not fly the Northrop Grumman jet.
Today the technical support of the NATO of airplanes takes place in the work Manching of the EADS. Here also in the last years a ESM system was re-tooled, to recognize by the two antenna dents on the left and on the right by the front trunk.
Sure, the translation is hard to understand.
According to your logic Boeing gathered no experience from KC-10?
Not on the E-3 awacs upgrade page. so sorry. not .
Link, please.
The AEW&C Peace Eagle aircraft for Turkey are being fitted with EADS Defence Electronics multi-sensor integration software.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/
Wedgetail won't count as AWACS, I suppose.
“WRONG all 22 are either employed by EADS or NG. and they had to retract there newspaper ad.”
Funny, but in post 133 you claimed it was only 12.
“And no the KC-45 is not better. The KC-767 scored higher on what counts.”
Boeing didn’t offer the KC-767 for the competition, they offered the non-existant KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker)
that is based on the equally non-existant 767-200LRF.
So how could a non-existant aircraft “score higher on what counts” than an aircraft that is already flying?
The only one who needs to “get it straight” is you since EADS is moving the line here to the U.S.
“Not all but close. as for the eads it aint got NADA.”
It’s going to be outfitted with whatever equipment the Air Force specifies. So your claims are rubbish.
“the KC-30 is not what its made up to be people”
Really who says? You? ROFLMAO!!!
At least the KC-30 is flying, unlike Boeings NON-EXISTANT KC-767AT
“It will cost more, as almost all of there programs are, it will be delayed as all of there programs are. and cannot do the job its suppose to.”
Oh, like Boeing hasn’t inflated program costs before?
The baseline KC-767 that was bought by Japan and Italy were over 2 years late being delivered.
And as far as can not do it’s job, the KC-767AT can’t refuel the M-22 Osprey either due to the slower speed of the V-22.
EADS does all of the routine repairs through depot level work on the NATO and French Air Force E-3 AWACS fleet.
http://www.eads.net/1024/en/businet/defence/mas/mission_aircraft/e3a_awacs/e3a_awacs.html
“EADS a400 5 years behind millions over cost and Germany threating to fine or cancel.”
How is it 5 years behind? The partner nations, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg, signed the agreement in May 2003 to buy 212 aircraft. And following the withdrawal of Italy and revision of procurement totals the revised requirement was for 180 aircraft, with first flight in 2008 and first delivery in 2009.
The A400M was “rolled out” in Seville on 26th June 2008 at an event presided by King Juan Carlos I of Spain, while the maiden flight is set for Summer 2008.
So much for your claims since the only thing about Germany sanctioning EADS was by the “Islamic Republic News Agency” that was posted on globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/01/mil-080107-irna01.htm
“You should be ashamed of yourself.”
Yes, YOU should be.
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.