Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Posted: 5/22/2008 12:34:20 AM EST
NG-EADS sure ain't letting the grass grow under their feet…


U.S. Air Force's Second KC-45 Tanker Airframe Completes Test Flights, Two Aircraft Now Ready for Tanker Modification

Posted : Mon, 19 May 2008 12:32:53 GMT
Author : NORTHROP GRUMMAN
MELBOURNE, Fla., May 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/


The second aircraft that Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has designated for the U.S. Air Force KC-45 Tanker program completed its final check flight May 15, illustrating the rapid production capability that will allow Northrop Grumman to quickly replace the aging KC-135 Tanker fleet.

Photos accompanying this release are available at: http://media.primezone.com/noc/

"The Northrop Grumman KC-45 Tanker team is ready now -- and having two aircraft set for modification reinforces our commitment to the Air Force," said Paul Meyer, vice president of Air Mobility Systems for Northrop Grumman. "Our nation's airmen have needed new tankers for nearly a decade now. We cannot afford to delay this replacement program any longer."

This aircraft, designated SDD-2, follows the first KC-45 Tanker airframe (SDD-1), which was completed in July 2007 and performed its maiden flight Sept. 25, 2007. Both SDD-1 and SDD-2 will be outfitted with in-flight refueling systems and additional military-specific equipment.

"We now have the first two KC-45 airframes complete, and we're ready to get to work as soon as the stop work order is lifted," Meyer said. "While other companies continue to move manufacturing off shore, our approach reverses that trend, creates 48,000 aerospace jobs in the United States and brings an enormous amount of work share into the country."

Northrop Grumman's KC-45 is based on the Royal Australian Air Force's KC-30B Multi-role Tanker, which is on schedule for delivery in early 2009. The United States is the fifth straight country to select the A330-based tanker for its Air Force.

About the KC-45

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation, Sargent Fletcher, Honeywell, Parker, AAR Cargo and Telephonics.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

SOURCE Northrop Grumman Corporation
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 12:59:57 AM EST
In before the Boeing Fanboys and the dolts who don't think anything from Europe could be any good...
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 1:02:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lancair:
In before the Boeing Fanboys and the dolts who don't think anything from Europe could be any good...


Don't worry, they'll all get their loud mouths shut by the GAO next month.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 1:02:41 AM EST
They're not mucking around, are they?
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 1:15:35 AM EST
I thought they had to halt work until the GAO released their report.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 1:52:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
I thought they had to halt work until the GAO released their report.


They just would not get paid for any work done, if the GAO found in Boeings favor, NG would be out the money.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:05:57 AM EST

Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:16:11 AM EST
"Ready for modifications".

Yeah, that means the A-330s landed and got moved into the hangar.


Now, how long will those modifications take?


It's a moot point anyway.


1: The GAO is not going to be kind to the Scarebus lovers.


2: Congress probably won't fund anything but a Boeing tanker. What good is a contract if Congress shuts down the funding for it?



As has been said before, the reasonable grounds for objection are simple: Boeing was
told the AF needed one thing, and not told when the AF decided to go look at something else instead. That's FRAUD, and it's illegal in EVERY civilized country.


Airbus has broken a number of European laws lately and the US is going to start paying attention to that. It'll be a factor in business dealings.

Boeing receives no subsidies. Airbus would have ceased to exist long ago without its
subsidies, in fact, it's NEVER been profitable!


Airbus....the loser in every imaginable way. An unprofitable, corrupt company that
breaks its own continent's laws.


CJ
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:17:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:


1: The GAO is not going to be kind to the Scarebus lovers.



You saying that Boeing has bought off more people?
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:18:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
"Ready for modifications".

Yeah, that means the A-330s landed and got moved into the hangar.


Now, how long will those modifications take?


It's a moot point anyway.


1: The GAO is not going to be kind to the Scarebus lovers.


2: Congress probably won't fund anything but a Boeing tanker.
What good is a contract if Congress shuts down the funding for it?



As has been said before, the reasonable grounds for objection are simple: Boeing was
told the AF needed one thing, and not told when the AF decided to go look at something else instead. That's FRAUD, and it's illegal in EVERY civilized country.


Airbus has broken a number of European laws lately and the US is going to start paying attention to that. It'll be a factor in business dealings.

Boeing receives no subsidies. Airbus would have ceased to exist long ago without its
subsidies, in fact, it's NEVER been profitable!


Airbus....the loser in every imaginable way. An unprofitable, corrupt company that
breaks its own continent's laws.


CJ


Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:25:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By bytor94:

Originally Posted By dport:
I thought they had to halt work until the GAO released their report.


They just would not get paid for any work done, if the GAO found in Boeings favor, NG would be out the money.



Nope, there is a market for those Airbus Tankers… they would just sell them on to the RAAF who have ordered some for starters.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:29:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lancair:
In before the Boeing Fanboys and the dolts who don't think anything from Europe could be any good...


Agreed.

"We have to give our men and women the best available equipment to face the enemy - unless it isn't entirely USA made, then all bets are off."

Before you go and make any rational comments here, you've got to remember that the average poster here probably:

-Gets the majority of their daily news and worldly interaction through a CB radio
-Has no idea what free trade or open market means
-Thinks GM and Ford are USA made and Toyota is made in Japan
-Call themselves conservatives but are hypocrites: They don't want .gov intrusion into our 2A rights, but wants them involved with overturning Roe v. Wade with tanks if necessary
-Thinks unions are a good thing
-Blames the government for "allowing" the outsourcing of low skill jobs overseas while taking ZERO personal responsibility to retrain themselves or learn new skills sets
-Fails to see the problem inherent with ordering 3XL Multicam pants
-Is bitter towards folks that have anything beyond a high school equivalent education
-Thinks that LEO's are all out to get them and their dog
-Has employed a trucker bomb in the last 24-48 hours
-Thinks a $24 Team Membership filters their comments from idiocy and empowers them with new levels of intelligence and cognitive ability


SW
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:35:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/22/2008 2:38:07 AM EST by Lert]
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:36:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness about the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, wouldn't it?



That's an interesting case you put forward there young Jeddi.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:37:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness about the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, wouldn't it?


You bet your ass it would.

Link Posted: 5/22/2008 2:41:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?


Boeing does not get subsidies. Boeing is awarded contracts.

At least the Europeans are honest about who is sucking on the .gov teat.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:24:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By swiseuf:

Before you go and make any rational comments here, you've got to remember that the average poster here probably:

-Gets the majority of their daily news and worldly interaction through a CB radio

-Thinks GM and Ford are USA made and Toyota is made in Japan

-Fails to see the problem inherent with ordering 3XL Multicam pants

-Has employed a trucker bomb in the last 24-48 hours

SW


These made me lol.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:37:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

2: Congress probably won't fund anything but a Boeing tanker. What good is a contract if Congress shuts down the funding for it?



I see that as usual you are woefully misinformed.



(WASHINGTON, DC) May 1 -- The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved a $612-Billion Defense Authorization Bill which includes fully funding the Air Force's proposed refueling tanker contract with Northrop Grumman/EADS.

“This is great news for the tanker project,” Sessions said.

After a lengthy competition, the Air Force announced in February that it had chosen a team led by Northrop Grumman to build the tanker, with much of the aircraft to be built in Mobile. Critics of the decision have suggested they would attempt to defund the tanker program rather than allow the Government Accountability Office to confirm the Air Force’s selection.

Providing full funding in the committee’s bill was a critical step toward ensuring that production of the much-needed tanker starts on schedule.

“I am pleased that the Committee refrained from interfering with the GAO’s independent review of the tanker competition and moved to fully fund this vital program,” Sessions, a senior member of the committee, said. “I will continue to work to ensure that Congress follows the lead of the Armed Services Committee and respect the review process that is established by law. Doing so will ensure that our men and women in the military get the best tanker available.”

(Click on the attached document to view the full news release issued by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) press office in Washington, D.C.)

Meanwhile, the Senate panel has agreed unanimously to block the Defense Department from funding Iraq reconstruction projects worth more than $2 million and to begin to force Baghdad to cover the costs of training and equipping its security forces.

The provision, included in a 2009 defense policy bill approved this week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, comes as Democrats draft a similar provision within separate legislation that would cover this year's war spending.

The efforts are part of the latest push on Capitol Hill to get Iraq to spend more of its own money and spare U.S. taxpayers. Democrats and many Republicans say it is unfair that Iraq is looking at pulling in as much as $70 billion in oil revenues this year while Americans grapple with soaring fuel prices at the pump.

"We want to send a very powerful message to the Iraqis and to the administration as to the cost of this war and the absurdity that a country which is exporting 2 million barrels a day of oil, for which we are paying when it gets to the pump now $3.50 a gallon" is not fully paying to rebuild itself, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The White House said Thursday that for American troops to be withdrawn eventually from Iraq, money must be spent to help rebuild the country and train Iraqi troops.

"I think it's important that the Iraqis actually are spending a lot more on their reconstruction than maybe is commonly understood out there," said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. "In their most recent budget, they'll outspend the United States 10 to 1 on reconstruction. ... We are pretty much out of the business of very large reconstruction projects in Iraq."

Fratto did not say whether the administration would threaten to veto the legislation. Lawmakers involved in drafting the bill said it was unlikely, particularly because of the bipartisan support it attracted.

"They didn't reject it," said Sen. Ben Nelson of closed-door negotiations this week with the National Security Council. Nelson, D-Neb., sponsored the provision along with Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

The defense policy bill, which will be considered by the full Senate later this month, would only affect Defense Department spending in 2009, which is estimated at $612.5 billion. It is unclear how much of that money could potentially be used for reconstruction and therefore might be affected by the proposed restriction.

Levin said an attempt will be made on the Senate floor to expand to the State Department the prohibition on using taxpayer money for major Iraqi reconstruction. The State Department handles most of the large rebuilding efforts.

"The intention here is to stop the funding of infrastructure by whatever department," he said.

The defense authorization legislation specifically supports smaller rebuilding projects, but would require the administration to work with Baghdad to obligate its own money first. It also says the U.S. must initiate negotiations with Iraq on a broader agreement to share the costs of combat operations in Iraq.

Instead of flatly prohibiting aid to the Iraqi security forces, the bill says the U.S. "shall take actions to ensure that Iraqi funds are used" to cover those costs, including the salaries of the forces and any payments to Sunnis who are part of the Awakening Movement.

Overall, the defense policy bill would authorize $542.5 billion in annual defense spending, as well as $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides the reconstruction provision, the authorization bill would ban all private security contractors from working in "highly hazardous public areas where the risks are uncertain and could reasonably be expected to require deadly force," according to a committee summary.

Levin said the Defense Department already imposes such a rule on its contractors, but the State Department "was the problem." He said he did not know how many contractors the new law would affect if enacted, but said he thought the number would be fairly small.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said Thursday that this year's war spending bill will likely include a provision restricting U.S. money on Iraq reconstruction as well. He said he is recommending that the bill include $170 billion for combat operations — money that would cover the war until the next administration takes over in January. His proposal also would ban permanent bases in Iraq, set limits on aggressive interrogations and require that service members sent to Iraq be fully trained and equipped, he said.

Congressional officials said the administration this week pushed the Senate Armed Services Committee to let the president waive any restrictions on reconstruction funds if he determined it was necessary to protect national security. Despite support for the idea by the committee's No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, Collins and the panel's Democrats said allowing such waivers would have made the legislation too soft.

Warner told reporters Thursday that he supports the authorization bill as it is written, which sends a "loud message" that "the American people expect no less than an increased sharing of the responsibilities and the financial burdens."
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:42:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
"Ready for modifications".

Yeah, that means the A-330s landed and got moved into the hangar.


Now, how long will those modifications take?


It's a moot point anyway.


1: The GAO is not going to be kind to the Scarebus lovers.


2: Congress probably won't fund anything but a Boeing tanker.
What good is a contract if Congress shuts down the funding for it?



As has been said before, the reasonable grounds for objection are simple: Boeing was
told the AF needed one thing, and not told when the AF decided to go look at something else instead. That's FRAUD, and it's illegal in EVERY civilized country.


Airbus has broken a number of European laws lately and the US is going to start paying attention to that. It'll be a factor in business dealings.

Boeing receives no subsidies. Airbus would have ceased to exist long ago without its
subsidies, in fact, it's NEVER been profitable!


Airbus....the loser in every imaginable way. An unprofitable, corrupt company that
breaks its own continent's laws.


CJ




lol
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:46:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/22/2008 3:50:33 AM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:48:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?


Boeing does not get subsidies. Boeing is awarded contracts.

At least the Europeans are honest about who is sucking on the .gov teat.


Enumerate subsidies to Boeing.



Washington State Tax breaks for starters…
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:50:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/22/2008 3:53:24 AM EST by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?


Boeing does not get subsidies. Boeing is awarded contracts.

At least the Europeans are honest about who is sucking on the .gov teat.


Enumerate subsidies to Boeing.


Read the briefs from both sides that are part of the WTO lawsuit:

Two sides still talking about it, not quite ready to duke it out in the WTO yet

Both companies receive subsidies, nobody with half a brain disputes that. The only question is how much and from whom.

ETA:

Guess that talks didn't work out:



September 27, 2007
W.T.O. Hears European Complaint of U.S. Aid to Boeing
By BLOOMBERG NEWS

Boeing receives “lavish” government subsidies that give it an unfair competitive edge over its rival aircraft maker Airbus, the European Union told the World Trade Organization at a hearing yesterday.

The two-day proceeding is the first time that judges have heard the European Commission’s aircraft subsidies case against Boeing and comes after a complaint by the United States about aid granted to Airbus, which is based in Toulouse, France and is the biggest producer of commercial aircraft. The European Union says Boeing has received $23.7 billion in Defense Department and NASA research subsidies, as well as state and local funding.

“The core of the E.U.’s challenge is the lavish R.&D. support, as well as Boeing-specific support” from state governments, said the commission, the European Union’s trade authority. “The support clearly aims at weakening Airbus’s position and competitiveness and boosting that of Boeing.”

The European Union and the United States filed countercases in September 2004 over aid to Airbus and Boeing, the only two makers of large commercial aircraft in a $150 billion market. Together, the challenges are the largest to go before the World Trade Organization. Efforts to resolve the dispute by replacing a 1992 accord that set limits on government financing for the plane makers have failed.

The United States presented its argument last November, saying government subsidies to Airbus in the form of risk-free grants amounted to $23 billion over the last four decades, or $205 billion if interest is included.

At the heart of its case is the argument that the European Union offers loans below commercial rates and that Airbus uses the loans to begin new projects and repays them only if the aircraft are commercial successes.

Each side has accused the other of supplying inaccurate data. The commission says the United States “grossly inflates the numbers” on Airbus support, while the United States argues that the European Union unfairly counts as government grants $10.4 billion that Boeing received from NASA for research services.

A ruling in the case by the United States against Airbus, expected in December, has been delayed. An initial confidential report from judges on the European Union’s filing against Boeing is expected in April.

Link Posted: 5/22/2008 4:23:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?


Boeing does not get subsidies. Boeing is awarded contracts.

At least the Europeans are honest about who is sucking on the .gov teat.


Enumerate subsidies to Boeing.


Read the briefs from both sides that are part of the WTO lawsuit:

Two sides still talking about it, not quite ready to duke it out in the WTO yet

Both companies receive subsidies, nobody with half a brain disputes that. The only question is how much and from whom.

ETA:

Guess that talks didn't work out:



September 27, 2007
W.T.O. Hears European Complaint of U.S. Aid to Boeing
By BLOOMBERG NEWS

Boeing receives “lavish” government subsidies that give it an unfair competitive edge over its rival aircraft maker Airbus, the European Union told the World Trade Organization at a hearing yesterday.

The two-day proceeding is the first time that judges have heard the European Commission’s aircraft subsidies case against Boeing and comes after a complaint by the United States about aid granted to Airbus, which is based in Toulouse, France and is the biggest producer of commercial aircraft. The European Union says Boeing has received $23.7 billion in Defense Department and NASA research subsidies, as well as state and local funding.

“The core of the E.U.’s challenge is the lavish R.&D. support, as well as Boeing-specific support” from state governments, said the commission, the European Union’s trade authority. “The support clearly aims at weakening Airbus’s position and competitiveness and boosting that of Boeing.”

The European Union and the United States filed countercases in September 2004 over aid to Airbus and Boeing, the only two makers of large commercial aircraft in a $150 billion market. Together, the challenges are the largest to go before the World Trade Organization. Efforts to resolve the dispute by replacing a 1992 accord that set limits on government financing for the plane makers have failed.

The United States presented its argument last November, saying government subsidies to Airbus in the form of risk-free grants amounted to $23 billion over the last four decades, or $205 billion if interest is included.

At the heart of its case is the argument that the European Union offers loans below commercial rates and that Airbus uses the loans to begin new projects and repays them only if the aircraft are commercial successes.

Each side has accused the other of supplying inaccurate data. The commission says the United States “grossly inflates the numbers” on Airbus support, while the United States argues that the European Union unfairly counts as government grants $10.4 billion that Boeing received from NASA for research services.

A ruling in the case by the United States against Airbus, expected in December, has been delayed. An initial confidential report from judges on the European Union’s filing against Boeing is expected in April.



I hear a trade war a comin'
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:35:30 PM EST
Considering that Airbus has never yet operated in the black, if you remove subsidies from their revenue stream, if there's a trade war in the commercial airliner industry under absolutely fair conditions (no subsidies of any kind) then Boeing wins by default as Airbus
can't turn a profit.


If you say Boeing has received subsidies, cite reputable data from reputable sources that supports that statement.



While funding for the KC-45 MAY have made it through the armed services committee, its passage before the general votes in Congress is not assured.

CJ
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 3:41:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Considering that Airbus has never yet operated in the black, if you remove subsidies from their revenue stream, if there's a trade war in the commercial airliner industry under absolutely fair conditions (no subsidies of any kind) then Boeing wins by default as Airbus
can't turn a profit.


If you say Boeing has received subsidies, cite reputable data from reputable sources that supports that statement.



While funding for the KC-45 MAY have made it through the armed services committee, its passage before the general votes in Congress is not assured.

CJ


Big bucket of fail right there… Airbus has regularly turned in very handsome profits.


Page last updated at 06:00 GMT, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 07:00 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
EADS profits from Airbus results




European aerospace group EADS has reported a three-month profit, helped by improved results from its passenger plane unit Airbus.
EADS posted a net profit of 285m euros ($440m; £227m) for the first quarter of 2008, compared with a loss of 10m euros in the same period last year.
Much of the improvement came from Airbus, which had a better-than-expected quarter.
EADS chief executive Louis Gallois said the results were "encouraging".
But he added: "Though many serious challenges have been overcome there remains much to do in order to secure the significant and lasting improvement in operational performance we are targeting."
Among the challenges facing EADS is the weakness of the US dollar against the euro, which is a particular problem for a company that sells its products in dollars but pays most of its bills in euros.
The results came the day after Airbus warned that its customers faced further delays in the delivery of its A380 aircraft.
More time and resources were needed to increase production, the company said, which would result in fewer deliveries than planned during 2008 and 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7399857.stm
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 4:52:30 PM EST
Now try again when you deduct European government subsidies for the year from Airbus' bottom line.



CJ
Link Posted: 5/23/2008 10:49:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Now try again when you deduct European government subsidies for the year from Airbus' bottom line.



CJ


Well Boeing/US .Gov can't seem to make it's mind up from one week to the next how much these 'subsidies' are. (even though the are legal under a bilateral treaty).
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 5:40:57 AM EST
....so Vito punts rather than answer the question....


CJ


Link Posted: 5/24/2008 5:49:58 AM EST
If the Airbus tanker goes through, I give it 75% odds Congress defunds it and it dies. Boeing has a lot more weight on the hill these days than Northrop (hell Northrop has never really recovered from its missteps in the early 1990s), and it looks good in PR for a Congressman to say "Hey, I killed that goddamn frog tanker and gave the job of building those planes to Americans".

Is that fair? Nope. But it's politics... The nature of all governments. To expect otherwise is to inhabit delusions.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:01:12 AM EST
This is beyond absurd....

If congress pulls a shitfit and they very well could... they have just set us back as a nation..

No noncongressional lobbied kickback company will ever submit bids on RFP's again.


If B wanted to offer a 777 they should have boo fucking hoo it was no secret that EADS was offering a much bigger aircraft
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:35:15 AM EST
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".


The horse salesman is pretty good. He gets the AF to look at horses and before too
long, the AF amends the proposal and adds "or horses".

BUT...they neglect to tell Boeing of the contract change.



There's a word for that...several, actually. And more than just words, there are several
phrases that apply as well. A few examples:

Fraud.
Malfeasance.
Breach of contract.


The AF did not want Boeing to be able to compete on a level playing field, and did not
give them the opportunity to do so. And they committed further indiscretions by
electing to make their own "adjustments" to Boeing's stated estimated lifetime costs
for their entry, though Boeing is more qualified to make those estimates than is the
AF due to the extensive service history of the 767 airframe.


The AF skewed this bid in every possible way to ensure Boeing couldn't win, and in doing
so bent and broke a considerable number of laws.

I truly hope the GAO concludes their investigation with a report that pretty much says this:

The contract awarded by the USAF to EADS is rendered null and void. The GAO directs the
USAF to either accept the Boeing proposal "as it stands" immediately, or go through the
entire rebid process, while under extremely close scrutiny at every phase of the process,
by the GAO, to ensure that the bid process is 100 percent open and transparent and
that all competitors are FULLY informed of the Air Force's desires regarding the new tanker
and given every possible opportunity to compete fairly. Furthermore, the GAO should
order that all those who were directly involved in the process of making the defective
contract decisions shall be removed from any involvement in the rebid, and the GAO
recommends criminal investigative proceedings regarding those individuals as it seems
possible that some of them may have intentionally committed fraudulent acts in this bid process.

I'd have no objections to an EADS win if there were no questions about the process
having been open, transparent, and utterly fair to all competitors, but this is clearly
NOT the case.

I would rather see the AF continue to fly KC-135s for the next 40 years than see
them flying ANYTHING that was acquired through fradulent and dishonest means.


CJ



Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:39:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".
<snip>







You mean to tell me B didn't know what EADS was submitting




Your post summed up.

Boo hoo.. the US taxpayer is not going to keep the 767 line open.......

Those that take risks get rewarded

B shoud have submitted 737/767/747/777 proposals but they got lazy which is stupid when they were allready on the AF's bad side for trying to force 767's down the throat of the us taxpayer
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:44:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".
<snip>







You mean to tell me B didn't know what EADS was submitting




Your post summed up.

Boo hoo.. the US taxpayer is not going to keep the 767 line open.......

Those that take risks get rewarded

B shoud have submitted 737/767/747/777 proposals but they got lazy which is stupid when they were allready on the AF's bad side for trying to force 767's down the throat of the us taxpayer


You are correct. It was entirely Boeing that moved that deal. I mean it's not like the Air Force went to Boeing and said they needed new tankers right away and asked for a lease so they could use O&M money to get the first jets instead of waiting for more procurement funds.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:44:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".
<snip>







You mean to tell me B didn't know what EADS was submitting




Your post summed up.

Boo hoo.. the US taxpayer is not going to keep the 767 line open.......

Those that take risks get rewarded

B shoud have submitted 737/767/747/777 proposals but they got lazy which is stupid when they were allready on the AF's bad side for trying to force 767's down the throat of the us taxpayer


Exactly right. The GAO will uphold the contract award, I'll be happy to bet a nominal sum on it with any of the Boeingites. Crying over spilt milk won't do much good for the lazy B. They should have submitted the 787, but they are too busy "selling" them to airlines they can't actually deliver to on time. The 707/C-135 was a revolutionary airframe, the 767 is three decades old garbage. It's not like they were even submitting an existing airframe, it is still a paper airplane made up of parts from three different variants.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 6:47:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".
<snip>







You mean to tell me B didn't know what EADS was submitting




Your post summed up.

Boo hoo.. the US taxpayer is not going to keep the 767 line open.......

Those that take risks get rewarded

B shoud have submitted 737/767/747/777 proposals but they got lazy which is stupid when they were allready on the AF's bad side for trying to force 767's down the throat of the us taxpayer


You are correct. It was entirely Boeing that moved that deal. I mean it's not like the Air Force went to Boeing and said they needed new tankers right away and asked for a lease so they could use O&M money to get the first jets instead of waiting for more procurement funds.


And as we all know, the architect of that lease deal, Darleen Druyun, had only the purest motives.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 8:30:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
As I've stated before, this can be summarized by this analogy:


The AF issued a proposal saying "We want to replace our old mules with new mules. We
want the new mules to do what the old ones did, and we're not looking for horses."


So Boeing offers their mule that's most like the old ones.

N-G offers a horse.


The contract doesn't say "horse", it says "mule".
<snip>







You mean to tell me B didn't know what EADS was submitting




Your post summed up.

Boo hoo.. the US taxpayer is not going to keep the 767 line open.......

Those that take risks get rewarded

B shoud have submitted 737/767/747/777 proposals but they got lazy which is stupid when they were allready on the AF's bad side for trying to force 767's down the throat of the us taxpayer


Exactly right. The GAO will uphold the contract award, I'll be happy to bet a nominal sum on it with any of the Boeingites. Crying over spilt milk won't do much good for the lazy B. They should have submitted the 787, but they are too busy "selling" them to airlines they can't actually deliver to on time. The 707/C-135 was a revolutionary airframe, the 767 is three decades old garbage. It's not like they were even submitting an existing airframe, it is still a paper airplane made up of parts from three different variants.


They should have proposed a 787 tanker? What would the risk assessment be on a plane that's only on paper?
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 1:20:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2008 4:39:52 AM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 3:14:14 PM EST
I agree about 30 year old designs not being obsolete.

Heck, C-130s have been in continuous production now for OVER 50 years. I believe that's by far the record for any military aircraft and probably is a record for ANY aircraft of any type, as I don't know of any other that's been in CONTINUOUS production for even close to 50 years.

The 707 airframe is a well designed airframe that marked the point at which the industry (or Boeing, at least) reached design maturity for subsonic, swept wing, multi-engine transports.

Everything since then has been a matter of refinements rather than fundamental changes.

If I'm not mistaken, the 707's cabin design, particularly the cockpit, was adopted by
Boeing as the standard from which the 727 and 737 were built, and the 757 has a virtually
identical cockpit to that of the 727, just as a twin rather than three engines. So they're
all closely related designs. Boeing got a lot of mileage out of the 707 designs and
derivatives because they got it right with the 707.

My guess is that if the tooling and production line for 707s still existed, a modernized
twin engined variant of a 707 would still be a competitive aircraft today.


Incidentally, I think the GOA won't be so kind to the AF over the deal. I could be wrong,
but I'd bet on the Boeing side of the dispute as I really think all of Boeings protests
and disputes have merit and the bidding process was not, in my opinion, done in a
totally fair, open, honest, and balanced manner.

I could lose that bet, but it's a bet I'd be willing to make.

CJ


Link Posted: 5/24/2008 3:18:52 PM EST
Sticking with the C-130 is a huge mistake. How many programs are limited because they have to fit in a space designed 50 years ago?
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 3:19:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
I agree about 30 year old designs not being obsolete.

Heck, C-130s have been in continuous production now for OVER 50 years. I believe that's by far the record for any military aircraft and probably is a record for ANY aircraft of any type, as I don't know of any other that's been in CONTINUOUS production for even close to 50 years.

The 707 airframe is a well designed airframe that marked the point at which the industry (or Boeing, at least) reached design maturity for subsonic, swept wing, multi-engine transports.

Everything since then has been a matter of refinements rather than fundamental changes.

If I'm not mistaken, the 707's cabin design, particularly the cockpit, was adopted by
Boeing as the standard from which the 727 and 737 were built, and the 757 has a virtually
identical cockpit to that of the 727, just as a twin rather than three engines. So they're
all closely related designs. Boeing got a lot of mileage out of the 707 designs and
derivatives because they got it right with the 707.

My guess is that if the tooling and production line for 707s still existed, a modernized
twin engined variant of a 707 would still be a competitive aircraft today.


Incidentally, I think the GOA won't be so kind to the AF over the deal. I could be wrong,
but I'd bet on the Boeing side of the dispute as I really think all of Boeings protests
and disputes have merit and the bidding process was not, in my opinion, done in a
totally fair, open, honest, and balanced manner.

I could lose that bet, but it's a bet I'd be willing to make.

CJ




I'll take that bet. One PMAG, non windowed black. Simple and cheap. I'll bet you right now the GAO will not overturn the contract award.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 3:24:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
Sticking with the C-130 is a huge mistake. How many programs are limited because they have to fit in a space designed 50 years ago?


Exactly. The Army realized it when they no longer constricted their FCS vehicles to C-130 transportability, but C-17. The -130 and -141 were simply too small for today's needs. A blackhawk, M-1, Bradley, Stryker (unless stripped to its bare nuts), CH-47, CH-53, Osprey, etc will not fit in a C-130. It was fine in the day of the jeep and UH-1, but those days are long gone. There is a reason the active duty AF never asked for the C-130J and Lockheed had to develop it on their own dime. It offers zero capability over the C-130H3. They do nothing but haul pax and pallets in OIF/OEF since they can't carry useful cargo any more. Even the late as hell A400 offers a much better option.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 3:38:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By Lancair:

Originally Posted By Lert:
If Congress will only fund a Boeing tanker, regardless of who won the competition, wouldn't that consititure fraud, or at least gross misrepresentation on the part of the US Government? If one part of the government solicits proposals for a competition, and another part of government will only fund one of the bidding companies, then all the screaming about fairness of the USAF's conduct of the competition becomes academic, doesn't it?


Boeing does not get subsidies. Boeing is awarded contracts.

At least the Europeans are honest about who is sucking on the .gov teat.


Enumerate subsidies to Boeing.



Washington State Tax breaks for starters…


Boeing was asking for cleaner business rules/taxes/fees for their various WA state suppliers. These would have been good for every business in the state.

The state says "umm, how about we give you a billion dollars instead..".

Boeing. "um, okay"
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 10:29:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
Sticking with the C-130 is a huge mistake. How many programs are limited because they have to fit in a space designed 50 years ago?



That's why we're going with the Airbus A400M
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 10:42:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
If the Airbus tanker goes through, I give it 75% odds Congress defunds it and it dies. Boeing has a lot more weight on the hill these days than Northrop (hell Northrop has never really recovered from its missteps in the early 1990s), and it looks good in PR for a Congressman to say "Hey, I killed that goddamn frog tanker and gave the job of building those planes to Americans".

Is that fair? Nope. But it's politics... The nature of all governments. To expect otherwise is to inhabit delusions.



Then the USA will probably land it self in a trade war that will hurt Boeing sales badly in the EU.
Link Posted: 5/24/2008 10:45:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By swiseuf:

Originally Posted By Lancair:
In before the Boeing Fanboys and the dolts who don't think anything from Europe could be any good...


Agreed.

"We have to give our men and women the best available equipment to face the enemy - unless it isn't entirely USA made, then all bets are off."

Before you go and make any rational comments here, you've got to remember that the average poster here probably:

-Gets the majority of their daily news and worldly interaction through a CB radio
-Has no idea what free trade or open market means
-Thinks GM and Ford are USA made and Toyota is made in Japan
-Call themselves conservatives but are hypocrites: They don't want .gov intrusion into our 2A rights, but wants them involved with overturning Roe v. Wade with tanks if necessary
-Thinks unions are a good thing
-Blames the government for "allowing" the outsourcing of low skill jobs overseas while taking ZERO personal responsibility to retrain themselves or learn new skills sets
-Fails to see the problem inherent with ordering 3XL Multicam pants
-Is bitter towards folks that have anything beyond a high school equivalent education
-Thinks that LEO's are all out to get them and their dog
-Has employed a trucker bomb in the last 24-48 hours
-Thinks a $24 Team Membership filters their comments from idiocy and empowers them with new levels of intelligence and cognitive ability


SW


Link Posted: 5/24/2008 11:29:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By AeroE:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
...
They should have proposed a 787 tanker? What would the risk assessment be on a plane that's only on paper?


Apparently, low.

Y'all running your mouths about obsolete 30 year old designs are spouting nonsense. The technical improvements are tied up in the avionics, some subsystem components, and the motors, and modern paints are better. Otherwise, there isn't a nickles worth of difference in BCA airframes from the 707 forward up to the next to last variants; the 747-400 has ice box rivets, and a year ago the -8F did as well. The most recent variants have a simplificaton that reduces touch labor, but I can make a strong argument that it doesn't enhance airworthiness, and but for redundancy, reduces airworthiness, particularly over the long life of airliners. The 747-8F has a new airfoil, flaps, and span, but I can tell you with confidence that the performance improvements are marginal, not revolutionary.

The 787 scares hell out of the strength engineering community; I guess we'll see how it shakes out soon enough.

The GAO is not going to turn the contract award over; I'll bet cash money on that.

Fine', I'm saying anything else.



i've got experience on the 707, 727, 737, 757, and the 767. latest is on the 767-400. i can attest to the fact that once boeing figures out what works they stick with it.

in the last two months i got transferred to an airbus maintenance line. from a heavy maintenance standpoint, the airbus is a pig. we do a crapload of maintenance/inspections that don't get done on a boeing.

personally, i think boeing builds a better aircraft. even though, i don't think the contract is getting overturned.

JT
Link Posted: 5/25/2008 4:40:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2008 4:40:57 AM EST by TexasRifleman1985]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
If the Airbus tanker goes through, I give it 75% odds Congress defunds it and it dies. Boeing has a lot more weight on the hill these days than Northrop (hell Northrop has never really recovered from its missteps in the early 1990s), and it looks good in PR for a Congressman to say "Hey, I killed that goddamn frog tanker and gave the job of building those planes to Americans".

Is that fair? Nope. But it's politics... The nature of all governments. To expect otherwise is to inhabit delusions.



Then the USA will probably land it self in a trade war that will hurt Boeing sales badly in the EU.


No argument there... I think the whole situation is being handled stupidly... But it's being handled by politicians, so what do you expect?

The way it is is the way it is.
Link Posted: 6/12/2008 4:46:12 PM EST


Air Force concedes errors in tanker estimates-Boeing

* Reuters
* , Thursday June 12 2008

By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision.
News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest.
In a 191-page document dated April 25 that was filed with the GAO, Boeing said mistakes in calculating the life cycle costs of the airplanes raised questions about the thoroughness and credibility of the Air Force's overall evaluation.
A copy of the redacted version of the document was obtained by Reuters on Thursday.
"With respect to the cost/price evaluation, as an initial matter, the Air Force now concedes that Boeing's most probable life cycle cost is lower than NG/EADS," Boeing wrote.
"This renders even more troubling the (Source Selection Authority's) initial public assertions that NG/EADS 'offered great advantage to the government in cost/price'," it wrote.
Boeing also said that the Air Force's acknowledgment addressed only a "miniscule fraction of the errors in the cost/price evaluations confirmed in the agency report."
But Northrop downplayed the impact of the Air Force error, saying life cycle costs were just one part of the Air Force evaluation. The final decision was based on the capabilities of its KC-30 tanker, not cost alone, Northrop officials said.
The Air Force declined comment. A spokeswoman said federal law barred the release of any proprietary information contained in the bids, such as design concepts, cost or pricing data.
$34 MILLION DIFFERENCE
Air Force documents initially put Northrop's life cycle cost at $108.01 billion versus $108.44 billion for the Boeing plane, a difference of $34 million or 3/100 of a percent.
In that calculation, Northrop's lower development and acquisition costs were balanced out by slightly lower operating costs of Boeing's 767, a Northrop spokesman said.
Neither Northrop nor Boeing disclosed what the costs would be for each bid, once adjusted for the calculation errors.
Boeing has argued in its protest and in a high-profile advertising blitz that the Air Force misled Boeing on the terms of the competition and skewed the results to favor Northrop.
Northrop, which was the underdog in the competition, is fighting to keep the contract valued at $35 billion.
During the protest review, the Air Force discovered five errors in the life cycle computation, which caused a slight adjustment in the operating costs of the two aircraft, Northrop said. But the initial results were "a dead heat" and remained essentially the same, even after the adjustments, it said.
Last week, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, John Young, said he hoped the contract would not be delayed by any "small" judgment calls by the Air Force.
In documents justifying her decision, Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton wrote the award was based on the greater capability offered by the Northrop tanker. Even if Boeing's price or risk had been lower, Payton said she "still would have decided to award to Northrop Grumman given their higher mission capability (especially the superior aerial refueling and airlift capabilities), past performance, and (Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment) evaluation."
Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said his company's bid was deemed advantageous for many reasons, including lower system design and development cost and risk; unit costs that were $10 million to $15 million lower per aircraft; and better combat performance in detailed simulations.
"Despite any minor inaccuracies in the process, the tanker providing the most capability at the best overall value is still the Northrop Grumman KC-45," Belote said.
"For all intents and purposes, the (life cycle) of both aircraft remain the same. The slight adjustment does not affect the outcome," he said. (Editing by Toni Reinhold)
Business
Link Posted: 6/13/2008 2:24:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:


Air Force concedes errors in tanker estimates-Boeing

* Reuters
* , Thursday June 12 2008

By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision.
News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest.
In a 191-page document dated April 25 that was filed with the GAO, Boeing said mistakes in calculating the life cycle costs of the airplanes raised questions about the thoroughness and credibility of the Air Force's overall evaluation.
A copy of the redacted version of the document was obtained by Reuters on Thursday.
"With respect to the cost/price evaluation, as an initial matter, the Air Force now concedes that Boeing's most probable life cycle cost is lower than NG/EADS," Boeing wrote."This renders even more troubling the (Source Selection Authority's) initial public assertions that NG/EADS 'offered great advantage to the government in cost/price'," it wrote.
Boeing also said that the Air Force's acknowledgment addressed only a "miniscule fraction of the errors in the cost/price evaluations confirmed in the agency report."
But Northrop downplayed the impact of the Air Force error, saying life cycle costs were just one part of the Air Force evaluation. The final decision was based on the capabilities of its KC-30 tanker, not cost alone, Northrop officials said.
The Air Force declined comment. A spokeswoman said federal law barred the release of any proprietary information contained in the bids, such as design concepts, cost or pricing data.
$34 MILLION DIFFERENCE
Air Force documents initially put Northrop's life cycle cost at $108.01 billion versus $108.44 billion for the Boeing plane, a difference of $34 million or 3/100 of a percent.
In that calculation, Northrop's lower development and acquisition costs were balanced out by slightly lower operating costs of Boeing's 767, a Northrop spokesman said.
Neither Northrop nor Boeing disclosed what the costs would be for each bid, once adjusted for the calculation errors.
Boeing has argued in its protest and in a high-profile advertising blitz that the Air Force misled Boeing on the terms of the competition and skewed the results to favor Northrop.
Northrop, which was the underdog in the competition, is fighting to keep the contract valued at $35 billion.
During the protest review, the Air Force discovered five errors in the life cycle computation, which caused a slight adjustment in the operating costs of the two aircraft, Northrop said. But the initial results were "a dead heat" and remained essentially the same, even after the adjustments, it said.
Last week, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, John Young, said he hoped the contract would not be delayed by any "small" judgment calls by the Air Force.
In documents justifying her decision, Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton wrote the award was based on the greater capability offered by the Northrop tanker. Even if Boeing's price or risk had been lower, Payton said she "still would have decided to award to Northrop Grumman given their higher mission capability (especially the superior aerial refueling and airlift capabilities), past performance, and (Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment) evaluation."Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said his company's bid was deemed advantageous for many reasons, including lower system design and development cost and risk; unit costs that were $10 million to $15 million lower per aircraft; and better combat performance in detailed simulations.
"Despite any minor inaccuracies in the process, the tanker providing the most capability at the best overall value is still the Northrop Grumman KC-45," Belote said.
"For all intents and purposes, the (life cycle) of both aircraft remain the same. The slight adjustment does not affect the outcome," he said. (Editing by Toni Reinhold)
Business


A couple of thoughts on this. First of all, there is nothing new here that we haven't already seen. This piece is almost completely from the perspective of Boeing bitching about getting beat - almost the entire top half of the "inverted pyramid" story is a restatement of Boeing claims.

Also, the winning edge that NG/EADS had from a product life cycle perspective was 3/100 of ONE percent!! On the $108 BILLION life cycle the total difference was $35 MILLION! This never was a "Stranglehold" on NG's part to begin with. Unless there were billions of dollars worth of mistakes made in projections by the USAF, Boeing is picking nits here.

The bottom line is that that this one aspect of the overall project is not what lost the bid for Boeing. The performance, mission capabilities and better value gives the NG/EADS design the edge here. If the .gov overturns this deal based on the bitching of Boeing people, I will puke. That goes against all things I believe in from my dyed-in-the-wool Milton Friedman supported beliefs.

Albeit an N of 1, my good friend who is a Boeing PhD/MBA engineer said Boeing "tossed up a turd" by selecting the 767 out of all the capable options they could have chosen. THAT is the fucking problem, not NG/EADS.
Link Posted: 6/13/2008 2:45:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/13/2008 2:49:43 AM EST by cmjohnson]
How many times is it going to have to be said before some people get it?


The AF asked for a REPLACEMENT for the KC-135, offering SIMILAR size, and SIMILAR capabilities, NOT for a larger aircraft with EXTRA capabilities.


They were bound by law (and they ARE) to select from offerings that FIT THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENT.


The NG/EADS offering does not fit the stated requirements and is instead more suitable
to replace or augment the KC-10 fleet.



It's not about which plane can do more, it's about choosing the product that best fits
your OWN stated requirements.


And to be perfectly blunt about it, if I were on the GAO investigative team, I would be
taking a very close look at every aspect of Sue Payton's associations and history
regarding contact with NG/EADS shills. Maybe even require her to submit to a full
financial assessment and be sure that she doesn't have any extra money lying around
that isn't easily explained.


I'm not saying she's dirty, but I can't prove she's spotlessly clean, either, and I think
there are some very suspicious things about the award, especially given Boeing's
very well proven track record and top level capabilities as a provider of complete
defense solutions. I see no valid reason to have a bias toward NG/EADS based
on products and capabilities. They're a capable company, but I don't think they
have superior capabilites.



CJ
Link Posted: 6/13/2008 2:46:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
How many times is it going to have to be said before some people get it?


The AF asked for a REPLACEMENT for the KC-135, offering SIMILAR size, and SIMILAR capabilities, NOT for a larger aircraft with EXTRA capabilities.



And Boeing tried to sell them a superannuated turd that was no longer selling and the line was about to be shut down.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Top Top