Northrop/EADS Beats Boeing For Tanker Contract / KC-45 Contract Awarded

[Verbal]

***This message is being sent by Scott Carson, president and CEO of Commercial Airplanes, to all BCA employees***

GAO decision upholds Boeing protest

The Government Accountability Office today ruled in our favor in our protest of the U.S. Air Force’s award of the KC-X tanker contract to our competitor. Today’s ruling validates our protest of the award – a step Boeing has rarely taken but did so in this case to ensure that the best tanker for the mission is selected, that the American taxpayer receives the best value.

While today’s decision is good news for Boeing and the 767 program, much remains to be done. Our expectation is that the Air Force will outline its plans in response to the GAO report within the next 60 days. We will eagerly await those next steps. Right now we believe the Air Force should move swiftly to a recompetition. Together with our colleagues in Integrated Defense Systems, we have a superb team that will build the very best next-generation tanker.

Thanks for your support and for all you do for Boeing.

Scott

Further "stone dead" updates as they develop....

[Top_Gun]

GAO rules on US Air Force tanker contract protest

"Boeing and Northrop Grumman may be forced compete all over again for a contract worth up to $35 billion to supply up to 179 tankers to the US Air Force.

US Government Accountability Office (GAO) auditors investigating a protest filed by losing bidder Boeing have found irregularities in the acquisition process that led to the USAF’s selection of the Northrop/EADS North America KC-30 tanker."

[landing-gear]

Ah...the playground bully gets to have another bite at the cherry!


Perhaps all the other countries that buy Boeing should look elsewhere, Boeing would be spending millions on legal cases..lol

[Verbal]

Ah...the playground bully gets to have another bite at the cherry!

Indeed. The whole tanker deal is all about corporate thuggery. Not really.

[wktaylor]

This situation with the USAF is probably like any shopper going to a dealership to select a new vehicle.fficeffice" />>>

>>

You've talked it over with Your wife/husband and estimated the vehicle size/capacity, expense, accessories, etc You need to be comfortable. No problem, You need a vehicle about the size of an extra long minivan with towing package or a GM YUKON.>>

>>

Now go to the dealerships and hunt for the best bargain in Your price/size range. >>

>>

The GM dealer points to the ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">YUKONlace> and SUBURBAN and says they are about the same price, except with some minor accessory differences. All-of a sudden, the SUBURBAN looks great: more capacity, more power, heavy duty off-road towing, enough accessories to get your job done, etc. The best part is when the salesman points-out that when the 7 seats are all full, the back is packed with luggage and it's towing the boat and camping trailer, no other vehicle can beat the economy [$/mile/#]. So You say "why-not go with the SUBURBAN after all???"... and sign Your name to the contract.>>

>>

Then You get it home and Your wife/husband takes a cold-hard look at what just it means to own the SUBURBAN. >>

>>

There are only 2 adults and 2-kids in the family. Sure the kids can invite 1-friend each for trips here/there... but mostly just 2 or 3 people drive in it daily... most times its as little as just the driver on errands.>>

>>

It is too long to park in Your garage or comfortably in the driveway. >>

> >

It is the gorilla-in-the-closet on city streets and in tight parking lots… and is a pain to park in narrow parking lanes or on city street curbs. And your homebuilders specifications indicated that your pavement was only “good for” [stressed for] a 7000# vehicle… not the 8000# weight of the fully loaded SUBURBAN [vehicle only]. >>

> >

The gas mileage is around 13-mpg lightly loaded in-town, or 11-mpg heavily loaded on the freeway. And fuel prices are escalating at insane levels. The double capacity extra range fuel tanks cost $150 to fill, today… and who knows what the price will be next year… so You may not need to gas-up for a while just running short errands… OH Yeah and you are still lugging around the weight of the extra tank and fuel [not a good idea to leave tanks empty due to danger of explosive vapors, moisture intrusion and possible seal/rubber gasket deterioration.>>

> >

The 2000# boat/trailer and 2000# camping trailer you tow once a year doesn’t even make the SUBURBAN break a sweat. In-fact it could tow 4000# more easily… You >>

> >

All the parts and maintenance labor on the vehicle are super-size also… after all this is the one with the deluxe engine and off-road towing package! Even the replacement tires are special order due to the load capacity requirements.>>

> >

And grandma/grandpa and your pre-teen nieces/nephews have a hard-time climbing-in and getting out; and the baggage area behind the back-seat is so large stuff rattles around… and You have to climb in to retrieve your groceries behind the rear seat. >>

> >

Not to mention that taxes, licensing and insurance fees are higher than you planned. And the car-wash charges more for your oversize vehicle.>>

> >

Now… does staying “on-spec” make some sense??? >>

> >

Unfortunately, I have seen this before in several USAF procurement schemes… decisions are made and reputations are staked-on poorly thought-thru procurements. >>

> >

OH YES, and the USAF, it’s supporting agencies/vendors, the Air Force Association, friendly news media etc… shout-down [denigrate] and pull the anti-GI/US “card” on any nay-sayers or others trying to insert common sense and cold/hard analysis to complex programs… after all who knows better…??>>

> >

Sleep tight tonight… Your Air Force is awake.

[landing-gear]

The issue with parking space!!!!
The A330 is only 13metres wider than the 767
The A330 is only 3.8 metres longer than 767

BIG WOW!!
We are not talking about a little grass strip airfield here
So you are telling me that just because it may need another 6 metres on either side..that this will cause enough disruption to apron parking to constitute the A330 as a non runner. Doh!
If a C-5 Galaxy and Air Force 1 wanted to land at these airfields they would be turned away??
Pretty poor agrument unless you are looking to park these aircraft like they do in the desert top n tailed for long term storage.

[Dmmoore]

The issue with parking space!!!!
The A330 is only 13metres wider than the 767
The A330 is only 3.8 metres longer than 767

BIG WOW!!
We are not talking about a little grass strip airfield here
So you are telling me that just because it may need another 6 metres on either side..that this will cause enough disruption to apron parking to constitute the A330 as a non runner. Doh!
If a C-5 Galaxy and Air Force 1 wanted to land at these airfields they would be turned away??
Pretty poor agrument unless you are looking to park these aircraft like they do in the desert top n tailed for long term storage.

Only 13 Meters! That's only 42.65 feet. Try placing a decimal point in there.

The contested critical point is the terms and requirements of the contract. Look carefully, the Airforce "seems" to have violated the contract by giving extra points for items that should not have been considered.

There is no contention that the A330 makes a better tanker. The question is under the terms of the contract, which aircraft complies fully for the lowest price.

If it's the A330, fine. If it's the 767, fine. The point is to give the Airforce what they asked for.

[wktaylor]

landing-gear ...fficeffice" />>>

>>

Your length dimension is WAAAAY-off. Don’t forget that the KC767 is a short body acft… the KC30 is the standard-body version. The KC-30 is ~10-M longer than the KC-767… NOT 3.8-M as you mentioned. Here are the raw dimensions…

> >

KC-135R Length= 136-Ft [41.45-M], Span= 131-Ft [39.9-M]

Ramp Area ~= 17816-Ft2 [1655.2-M2]

> >

KC-767 length=160-ft [48.8-M], Span= 156-Ft [47.5M]

Ramp Area ~= 24960-Ft2 [2318.9-M2]

> >

KC-30 Length=193-Ft [58.83-M], Span= 198-Ft [60.35-M]

Ramp Area ~= 38214-Ft2 [3550.2-M2]

> >

Ramp area% increase for the KC-767 over the KC-135R is 2318/1655-1= +40%

> >

Ramp area% increase for the KC-30 over the KC-135R is 3350/1655-1= +103%

> >

Ramp area% increase for the KC-30 over the KC-767 is 3350/2318-1= +44%

> >

Gear track width for the KC-30 is also wider… as well as the body and vertical stabilizer heights.


As for the C-5: it carries it's bulk on (4) MLG Struts with ( tires per strut and was designed for soft fields.

The KC-135, KC-767 & KC-30 have (2) struts with (4) tires per strut.

The 747 series acft have (4) struts with (4) tires per strut... concentrated in about the same LDG span-width as the KC-30 [~+/-2-M]. OH... and I guarantee AF-1 is NEVER operated the way a heavy tactical aircraft is: every movement of AF-1 is programed/computed/ before it is done.

Heavy-lift tactical aircraft [transports/tankers] face in-flight mission re-assignments, emergecy diverts, etc based on command NEED, not whims... and the KCs MUSTbe flown into forward bases to off-load fuel into ground-bladders for USAF-tactical air, army air and all ground operations (JP-8 has become THE standard fuel for all USAF/USA acft and all ground combat vehicles [multi-fue], and all ground stationary power units [multi-fuel]).

Have You ever been on a USAF base around parked/taxiing cargo acft?? The tighter the ramp space the MUCH greater chance for ground mishaps. And unloading oversized cargo from the front or back ramp is SIGNIFICANTLY different than unloading the same cargo from a side-opening cargo door.

OH, by the way do You know what "KC" actually stands for?????

[landing-gear]

Does someones tampon need changing?

I assumed the airframe of the KC 767 was that of the 300ER airframe that is earmarked as the freighter version...pardon moi i made an inaccurate assumption.
I would assume as wktaylor challenged me as to whether i have been on a USAF airfield..that he/she works on the apron area? Has the U.S. Military not heard of "dispersal" ??

Do i know what the KC- designation refers to?.....i will have a stab at it

Kerosene/Cargo

Ok so the 330 is bigger, those fantastic percentages are impressive

[Verbal]

Word today is that the Air Force will put the contract up for a full re-bid. This is like watching paint dry.

[Top_Gun]

back up for bid

Seceratry of Defense Robert Gates on Wednesday reopened the competition for the controversial contract to replace the U.S. Air Force's fleet of refueling tankers, putting defense giants Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co. against each other once again.

Gates said, however, that he wants the dispute resolved by December.


This time the Pentagon will make the deciding factor on who wins the bid, not the Air Force.