KC-X ..... è proprio una telenovela .....

[richelieu]

..... Alla fine della fiera, Richelieu, io faccio il cinese......mi siedo sulla riva del fiume e aspetto...e vediamo.

OK .....
.... Wait and see .....

Ciao .....

[Toeloop]

Al tempo stesso, in un comunicato contrapposto, Boeing ha anche rilasciato un video .....

The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing’s NewGen Tanker to be its new KC-46A air refueling jet.
The contract award, which follows a rigorous Air Force review of industry proposals, means Boeing will build the next-generation tanker that will replace 179 of the service’s 1950s-era KC-135s.

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/02/ ... 24_11.html

Ma e' bellissimo! Si sono rivenduti, per far vedere che e' pronto, il 767 italiano!!!!!

[richelieu]

"Aviation Week & Space Technology" analizza la vittoria di Boeing .....

What The Boeing Tanker Win Means

By Amy Butler (Washington) with Robert Wall (London)

Feb. 28, 2011


The question sweeping the U.S. defense establishment is: How low did Boeing go?

Nearly three years after the U.S. Air Force’s selection of a Northrop Grumman/EADS A330-based tanker was found by government auditors to be flawed, the service has now chosen a Boeing design to replace its aging KC-135 refuelers. The Air Force based its selection largely on life-cycle price, and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn says: “Boeing was a clear winner.”

Three years ago, Boeing’s price was roughly $8 million more per aircraft than EADS’s and its development price was higher, according to sources close to the duel. Right up until the source selection announcement last week, many defense analysts suggested EADS would underbid Boeing in order to establish a final assembly facility for Airbus aircraft in the U.S.

“It is very fortunate for Boeing that they got a second chance because their first bid was not competitive,” according to one defense industry analyst. John Young, the Pentagon procurement chief during the last source selection, says, “The delay [in fielding the aircraft] is unfortunate and it clearly led both teams to sharpen their pencils.”

The Air Force’s decision to select Boeing will likely sidestep a protracted debate with Congress; Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill were poised to fight on the company’s behalf, further delaying USAF’s ability to field new tankers. Boeing’s lobby in Congress is far more substantial than EADS’s, which mainly relied on lawmakers from Alabama, where the A330 was to be built, for its political influence.

Dennis Muilenburg, president of Boeing Defense Space and Security, says this KC-X proposal had a “one Boeing” tactic, including a marriage of its culturally diverse defense and commercial businesses. “We worked this as one integrated Boeing company,” he says, adding that this approach drove efficiencies and value to for the most recent proposal.

During the 2008 competition, Boeing was criticized for seeking too much profit, thus allowing for a then-Northrop Grumman/EADS team to underbid. Also, Boeing Commercial Airplanes was seen as uncooperative with government cost estimators who wanted pricing details on the 767 platform.

Boeing protested, leading government auditors to find flaws in the source selection. During this period, company officials were aggressive, publicly taking their top customer to task. Internally, however, Boeing did some soul-searching. “That was always the fear—that [EADS] could underbid again,” says one former Boeing official. “This is the last major USAF acquisition program in the foreseeable future,” and this tanker work was viewed by some in the company as a must win.

The Pentagon’s decision—if it withstands a possible protest from EADS—could repair the chasm in the Boeing/Air Force relationship. It also shores up not only decades of business with its top defense customer as military budgets begin to flatten but also steady work for the waning 767 production line. Perhaps more critical to the commercial side of Boeing, the win stunts its European commercial rival’s efforts to establish a stateside manufacturing facility for airliners.

A win for either company would have been considered strategic—EADS was hoping to substantially boost its U.S. revenue and, perhaps more critical for the future of its commercial business, was its plan to build an A330 final assembly facility in Mobile, Ala. Since establishing its North American arm in 2003, EADS has had a goal of aggressively growing its U.S. business, and winning KC-X was the largest single step in that strategy. EADS is likely to pursue other Pentagon business, including some smaller helicopter programs, but nothing that would bring with it the scale and prestige of U.S. livery on an A330-based tanker.

EADS North America officials were due receive a debriefing Feb. 28on the loss. Board Chairman Ralph Crosby said his company would not protest the decision unless there is an obvious error on the part of Air Force acquisition. EADS North America officials “expressed disappointment and concern” about the decision. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says he hopes this decision means people will “stop talking about it” and get on with fielding a tanker on schedule. The original Boeing lease—offered in 2002—called for tankers to be delivered in 2006. Investigations into the deal found a bloated price, a situation that kicked off the more recent competitions for a supplier.

A loss for Boeing would have been a blow, ending its five-decade monopoly on the U.S. refueling business as the Air Force’s interest in C-17s continues to be nonexistent. Boeing’s other defense hurdles include a downturn in missile defense opportunities and a recent guided weapon loss to Raytheon.

Pressure is now likely to mount for EADS North America to consider a U.S. acquisition to expand its stateside market share. However, uncertainty over the company’s shareholding structure and an anticipated management shuffle next year could further hinder efforts to execute its U.S. expansion anytime soon.

Though EADS has beat Boeing in previous competitions in Australia, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. and the United Arab Emirates, other countries may now turn away from the A330-based option in favor of the 767 tanker, now called the KC-46A, to achieve commonality with the U.S. fleet.

And, with 767 business established for at least 13 lots through the U.S. buy, the platform, though older than its A330 rival, could continue to challenge Airbus in the freighter market.

Boeing’s $3.5 billion contract covers the development of the system, and purchase of 18 aircraft (including those for test purposes), which will be fielded by 2017. The buy of 179 aircraft is estimated at up to $30 billion, Lynn says. Ashton Carter, the Pentagon procurement chief, says the contract will be signed soon, allowing work to begin smartly. If a protest is launched, a stop-work order will likely be issued immediately in accordance with procurement rules.

The development contract is fixed-price, a shift from the previous competition. However the process does carry risk. Production and flight-testing will be concurrent, says Jean Chamberlin, vice president of Boeing’s tanker program; if technical problems arise in flight-test, fixes may have to be retrofitted onto the aircraft. Although a different design, Boeing experienced substantial flight-test problems with its Italian 767-based tanker.

Production is slated to start in 2015, two years ahead of the first delivery. Initial flight test is also slated for 2015, Chamberlin says. The Pentagon has restructured the Joint Strike Fighter program twice in as many years to reduce concurrency. Though this stealthy fighter is more complex than a modified 767, lessons from JSF and many past programs have pointed to the benefits of discovering flaws in flight-test prior to production.

At the suggestion that Boeing bought into the program, risking its ability to make profit, Muilenburg said “We submitted an aggressive but responsible bid.”

If the decision manages to withstand scrutiny, and neither Congress or the protest reveal problems in the procurement process, this will be a pivotal step forward for an Air Force procurement corps beleaguered by missteps. They began, largely, with the Air Force/Boeing plan nearly 10 years ago to lease 767-based tankers, and continued with a problem in a competition to buy combat search-and-rescue helicopters among others. Perhaps the KC-X decision could be a fitting end to a decade of paralysis for Air Force weapons buyers.

[FAS]

Noi europei dovremmo operare le nostre scelte tenendo conto di questi eventi ed imitando il loro amore per la patria. Evitare prodotti amerdicani sia civili che militari

ma é difficile visto che molti europei impazziscono per le stelle e strisce.....basta mettergli le bandierine da cocktail USA sui pezzi di cacca che si mangiano anche quelli

Io faccio quel che posso, dai piu piccoli particolari......anche scegliendo solo voli operati con macchine diverse da Boe. tieeeeeeeeee

[richelieu]

Noi europei dovremmo operare le nostre scelte tenendo conto di questi eventi ed imitando il loro amore per la patria .....

Noi europei?
Quelli di "Tornado" e "Typhoon", tanto per citarne un paio fra i più importanti nel settore militare, possono essere considerati programmi completamente europei?
O c'è stato qualcuno che ha spesso remato contro, curando soltanto i propri interessi di bottega?

[SuperMau]

Noi europei dovremmo operare le nostre scelte tenendo conto di questi eventi ed imitando il loro amore per la patria .....

Noi europei?
Quelli di "Tornado" e "Typhoon", tanto per citarne un paio fra i più importanti nel settore militare, possono essere considerati programmi completamente europei?
O c'è stato qualcuno che ha spesso remato contro, curando soltanto i propri interessi di bottega?

Richelieu, potranno anche non essere completamente Europei, ma lo sono sicuramente in gran parte. Poi come sempre e dappertutto, c'e' chi rema contro, ma non e' questo il caso.
E comunque il Tifone, giusto per fare un riferimento, da' da mangiare sia a me che a FAS (oltre che a un sacco di aziende mie clienti), cosa che non succede con il JSF e compagnia cantante. Neanche la manutenzione dei vecchi F16 mi porta qualcosa in casa!

ma é difficile visto che molti europei impazziscono per le stelle e strisce.....basta mettergli le bandierine da cocktail USA sui pezzi di cacca che si mangiano anche quelli

eh, io l'ho pensato ma non l'ho detto ......

[SuperMau]

Aggiungerei anche una parte di conversazione molto interessante su un altro forum:

...............
The figure is just an example. We can be sure that the A330 is better than 5% in most metrics than the 767.

If I remember correctly a tanker ...
- has to carry as much fuel as possible
- as far as possible
- have the largest amount of fuel ready to offload ... and ...
- has to consume as little fuel as possible per carried gallon

Nothing of these things has anything to do with the number of booms. And in each of these metrics the USAF now has selected a clearly inferior solution.

..........

An A330 transports more of anything, over a longer segment for a lower relative price. How can it not come ahead if the capability is correctly put in a relation to the price? It must only have more additional "ability" in percentage than the price is higher in percentage. A330 and 767 sales on the free market in the last 10 years tell us how this relation in reality looks like.

A tanker must carry something that is heavy as far as possible. I don't see 767 aircraft delivering the same value for money than A330's in cases where a good payload/range curve has a positive impact. Never.

B.t.w. I don't really argue about the USAF buying Boeing. That is fine. Boeing is a well deserved tanker supplier. I only want to highlight that the RFP had to be bent quite a bit to get the desired "result".

No airline could afford to put out to tender such a RFP. Imagine the Ryanair boss saying: "Hey, we will completely ignore the real capability of any offer that costs more than 1% more than the cheapest (assumed both match the bare minimum requirement). We would still ignore it, if for 2% more money we could get something e.g. 5%, 10% or 15% better....!". Only an idiot would issue such RFP's in a free market.

Piu' chiaro di cosi'.....

[richelieu]

@ SuperMau .....

..... forse sono stato frainteso.
Non intendevo di certo prendere le parti degli USA (che, come tutti, fanno i propri interessi), ma evidenziare come, in più di un'occasione, la Francia si sia ritirata (per svariati motivi, non esclusa la "grandeur") da programmi europei, contribuendo, in un certo qual modo, a ridurne il potenziale.
Ed ora, col programma "Rafale", ne sta pagando il fio.
Sono passati i tempi in cui i "Mirage" si vendevano come caramelle .....
Che poi il programma "Typhoon" dia da mangiare a te e a tanti altri amici, non può che farmi piacere (come mi farebbe un grande piacere vederlo maggiormente esportato) .....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... iddle.html

..... e di questo puoi stare sicuro .....

Ciao

[SuperMau]

Eh, pensavo che volevi intendere i francesi ma non ero sicuro....
Concordo con te che, quando si parla di "grandeur" , i galletti non sono secondi a nessuno...

[richelieu]

Eh, pensavo che volevi intendere i francesi ma non ero sicuro....
Concordo con te che, quando si parla di "grandeur" , i galletti non sono secondi a nessuno...

Leggi, per cortesia, cosa ho riportato, in un'altra discussione di questo stesso forum (12 feb 2011, 9:15 e 12 feb 2011, 23:57), a proposito delle "pretese" dei nostri cugini d'oltralpe nell'ambito del programma "EFA" .....

http://www.md80.it/bbforum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=36062

Ciao

[FAS]

Noi europei dovremmo operare le nostre scelte tenendo conto di questi eventi ed imitando il loro amore per la patria .....

Noi europei?
Quelli di "Tornado" e "Typhoon", tanto per citarne un paio fra i più importanti nel settore militare, possono essere considerati programmi completamente europei?
O c'è stato qualcuno che ha spesso remato contro, curando soltanto i propri interessi di bottega?

beh i caproni eccezionali ci sono sempre.....
comunque é un bene che la Francia sia uscita dal programma EF...non ti nascondo che i francesi di Thales produttori dei vane degli ADT ancora cercano di boicottare il programma sia a livello di ILS che nuove tranche

[bufe01]

Come vedete dalle vs considerazioni la scelta di uno piuttosto che l'altro potrebbe nascere da motivazione tutt'altro che tecniche e\o economiche, le parole del CSM Usaf sono eloquenti, in poderosa sintesi...basta che ce ne date uno!
Chissà come è andata !

[AlphaSierra]

beh anche capovolgere il risultato di una gara basata su considerazioni tecniche dal 2004 al 2011 in cui i 2 progetti non sono per niente cambiati è tutt'altro che *cristallino*

[tacan_p]

Scommetto che se la proposta era cinese l'approvavano subito

[SuperMau]

Scommetto che se la proposta era cinese l'approvavano subito

no, la scartavano subito, come quella russa...perche' "senza i requisiti necessari" o inviata "fuori tempo massimo"

[mormegil]

Scommetto che se la proposta era cinese l'approvavano subito

Mi spieghi il perchè di questa tua affermazione?

[richelieu]

Il contratto è stato firmato .....

Fonte: AviationWeek.com

U.S. Air Force, Boeing Sign KC-X Contract

By Amy Butler (Mar. 2, 2011)

David Van Buren, the U.S. Air Force’s top acquisition executive, says that the contract with Boeing to develop the KC-46A aerial refueler has been signed, marking a major step in the Air Force’s decade-long pursuit of a KC-135 replacement.

Boeing, which won the $3.5 billion contract after more than a year of competition since the Air Force released its KC-X request for proposals, declined to say whether work has begun. The Air Force on Feb. 24 announced that the company’s 767-based KC-46A won over EADS North America’s A330-based option.

Van Buren declined to identify why Boeing won the deal, noting only that the company did undercut EADS in its price by more than 1%; the government adjusted the prices of the bids based on military construction needs, fuel burn and each aircraft’s performance in an operational modeling tool. Those prices have not been released by the government.

EADS has until March 7 to protest the decision if the company finds a procurement misstep by the Air Force in its source selection. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests a successful protest is unlikely. “We think that this was a very transparent, forthright process. Companies obviously have opportunities under the law to protest, but I think the view in this building is that there are no grounds for a valid protest,” he said during a March 1 press briefing at the Pentagon.

Van Buren says that additional data on why Boeing won will not be released because it is proprietary.

The decision came after years of missteps by the Air Force, starting with a highly overpriced lease deal for Boeing, then the 2008 announcement of a Northrop Grumman/EADS win, which was later dashed after procurement missteps came to light in a Government Accountability Office review.

“I am very, very proud of the program office,” Van Buren told an audience at a Credit Suisse conference March 1 in Arlington, Va. “I am very, very proud of Gen. Bogden,” he added, referring to Brig. Gen. Christopher Bogden, the program executive officer overseeing the KC-X buy. “Both of the companies conducted themselves really, really [professionally] — even during the activities of this week.”

Both companies received their source-selection debrefings Feb. 28; the briefing to EADS on why the Airbus design lost lasted about 90 min. If EADS protests, the Air Force will likely issue a stop-work order to Boeing while the protest claims are reviewed.

The first KC-46A flight is expected in 2015, and the first 18 aircraft will be fielded by 2017.

[MikeAlphaTango]

Finchè non lo vedo volare con le insegne USAF non ci credo

[richelieu]

Finchè non lo vedo volare con le insegne USAF non ci credo

The first KC-46A flight is expected in 2015 .....

Intanto comincia ad armarti di pazienza ..... poi, quando sarà il caso, potrai, come San Tommaso, infilare il dito nella piaga e soddisfare la tua incredulità .....

[SuperMau]

Richelieu,

ti metto li la domanda da un milione....

Diversi colleghi del settore sono dell'idea che dalla gara, nel lungo periodo, ne esca vincente Airbus piu' che Boeing.
Boeing si trovera' a dover produrre/certificare/consegnare una macchina nuova (nel senso che il KC-46A e' nuovo, mentre il 330MRTT esiste gia'), in cima ai gia' esistenti 3 programmi di certificazione, mentre Airbus libera da questo impegno potra' concentrare le risorse su altri progetti (completare il 350 in tempo, pensare al 380-900 e al 30X successore del 320.....)

Tu che ne pensi?
Ciao
M.

[richelieu]

Il fatto è che se EADS inoltra una protesta, giustificata o meno che sia, tutta la procedura si fermerà di nuovo in attesa che essa venga adeguatamente valutata .....

If EADS protests, the Air Force will likely issue a stop-work order to Boeing while the protest claims are reviewed.

Anche ammettendo che tale protesta venga ritenuta fondata ..... che faranno?
Dovranno indire una nuova competizione?
E, se a seguito di questa la situazione risultasse ribaltata, dovranno dunque confrontarsi con un ulteriore ricorso, in questo caso proveniente da Boeing?
E cosi via ..... all'infinito?

Di quell'aereo hanno necessità ..... e con urgenza .....e non possono stare in eterno a inseguirsi la coda .....

[SuperMau]

Richelieu,
una telenovela e' finita, ne comincia un'altra...

Newspaper Les Echos published a small article four days after the contract award noting that the USAF's decision on tankers will make it "very difficult" for Paris to purchase the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle, which is competing against the EADS Talarion and a Dassault/Thales/Indra consortium offering the Israel Aerospace Industries Heron TP.

[richelieu]

una telenovela e' finita .....

Finita?

Non è ancor detto, perchè EADS ci sta "rimuginando" sopra .....

EADS "is evaluating the information presented to us" ..... "Our objective has always been that the US warfighter receive the most capable tanker, following a fair and transparent competition. That remains our position today."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... otest.html

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-sect ... -perdu.htm

..... ne comincia un'altra .....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... klash.html

Ad ogni azione corrisponde un'azione uguale e contraria .....

[richelieu]

Il "debriefing" per EADS è durato due giorni .....

Fonte: Aviationweek.com

EADS KC-X Debriefing Spanned Two Days

By Amy Butler (Mar. 3, 2011)


The U.S. Air Force’s debriefing for losing KC-X bidder EADS North America spanned two days to allow the service to follow up on some items with the contractor, according to a program official.

The company’s debriefing on its loss wrapped up with a session March 1, the official says. It began with a 90-min. session Feb. 28.

A little-known fact about the debriefing process is that the government can keep the session open in the event a bidder has additional questions. This was the process used Feb. 28, and final issues were addressed the next day, the program official says.

Typically, the companies take the position that the clock for a protest runs out five days after the debriefing, when they are made aware of how the government performed its source selection. However, this is an issue of debate and the legal merits of the arguments on this matter would be handled by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the event a protest is lodged.

Either way, the likely deadline for a protest is March 7, according to David Van Buren, Air Force acquisition chief.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, says “I trust” that the companies involved in KC-X will “respect the decision” and “allow it to proceed unimpeded.” He made his comments March 2 at a conference in Arlington, Va., hosted by Credit Suisse.

“It is ugly history and so we worked diligently with extremely professional and competent offerors to make sure that this time we did it properly,” he adds.

He acknowledges that EADS is “entitled” to protest, and he notes there is “not payback on these kinds of things” with regard to future access to the U.S. defense market if they do. Some analysts suggest EADS would hold back on a protest at the risk of offending a major customer. “The process is much too pristine” for a bias of that sort, Schwartz says.

However, the tanker decision raises a larger question about perceived access by European manufacturers to the U.S. defense market. In recent years, an Italian design won the Marine One helicopter program, only to be scrapped owing largely to government squabbles over requirements. And Alenia’s grip on a once-robust C-27J buy loosened when the Air Force took over the program and truncated it, dashing the company’s plans to build a stateside final assembly facility.

Now, with the latest KC-X selection, EADS has lost to Boeing, quashing its hopes for a U.S. final assembly plant in the near term. Though these decisions were made individually on their merits by the Pentagon, some analysts wonder whether European contractors will begin to sour on the notion of doing business with a fickle Defense Department.

Schwartz says simply that “We are going to go where the best value resides,” indicating that non-U.S. designs are still welcome for consideration. The Boeing selection, he says, “is about the best deal.” Boeing won the $3.5 billion fixed-price development contract Feb. 24. The company is expected to deliver the first 18 KC-46As for operational use in 2017. Air Force officials acknowledged March 1 the contract was signed with Boeing; the company declines to say whether work has begun.

A Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team won a $1.5 billion development contract for four testing aircraft in 2008; that decision was overturned after Boeing launched a protest with GAO and procurement missteps came to light.

Meanwhile, the government and Northrop/EADS still have not reached a legal agreement on that canceled contract. The Air Force placed a substantial payment on the first KC-45A.

[richelieu]

DATE: 03/03/11
SOURCE: Flight InternationalBoeing's

KC-X spec still remains a secret

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing entered the second USAF tanker competition acknowledging the need to slash the KC-767's cost. While its losing bid in the last round combined elements of three versions of the 767 in what some called the "Frankentanker", Boeing appeared focused on leveraging existing technology.

But little is known about the details of Boeing's offer outside the air force's evaluation team. On 15 February, EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby noted that it was difficult for EADS to estimate Boeing's risk exposure because so many details about the KC-767's configuration and performance have not been revealed.

Since unveiling the KC-767 NewGen Tanker last February, Boeing officials kept the key facts about the company's offer hidden from public view. Among the items that remain undisclosed are the aircraft's range, payload capacity, and fuel offload at a given range.

Boeing also has not disclosed if the KC-767 - to be rebranded the KC-46A - is based on a single model or assembled from major elements of different models. Even the identity of the refuelling systems, including the boom, centreline drogue and wingtip hose and drogues, are still not publicised.

Asked if Boeing would now disclose those details a few hours after contract award, Dennis Muilenberg, president of the company's defence and security division, declined, saying they would not be "rolled out" until more time has passed.

The air force's evaluation, of course, determined that Boeing's proposal met all 372 mandatory requirements, which included specific measures for fuel offload at range, the flow-rate for the boom and payload capacity for cargo, passengers and medical patients.

[richelieu]

Finchè non lo vedo volare con le insegne USAF non ci credo .....

.....

[SuperMau]

Nel disegno manca la scritta " I Have a dream " ...

[richelieu]

Nel disegno manca la scritta " I Have a dream " ...

Quella, come già sai, hanno pensato bene di porla sul muso del nostro primo KC-767A .....

[richelieu]

E ..... guarda guarda ..... anche l'organo semi-ufficiale della "grandeur" dedica la copertina del suo ultimo numero all'amerikano .....

[richelieu]

La telenovela, questa volta, è davvero finita .....

DATE: 04/03/11
SOURCE: Flight International

EADS concedes KC-X contract award to Boeing

By Stephen Trimble


EADS North America has decided not to challenge Boeing's claim to the KC-X contract, clearing the way for the US Air Force to launch the $3.5 billion development phase for the 767-based KC-46A.

"EADS North America has decided not to protest the KC-X contract award," EADS NA chief executive Ralph Crosby says.

EADS officials had reviewed the 24 February contract award for 179 tankers since Monday, with the right to file a protest triggering a 100-day review by the Government Accountability Office.



"The acquisition architecture was quite mechanical and mathematical," Crosby says. "The outcome was decided by price and Boeing's offer was lower than ours."

Boeing's proposed price was $4 billion less than EADS' offer, Crosby says.

The EADS concession appears to close the final chapter in the roughly 10-year KC-X contract award process. The company's KC-45 actually claimed the KC-X contract in 2008, but the GAO upheld Boeing's protest and the air force relaunched the competition.

The Department of Defense announced last week that Boeing's proposal based on the KC-767 New Gen Tanker scored a clear victory in the air force's evaluation, which focused on lowest price.

"The air force ran this competition in accordance with all of the ground rules," Crosby adds. "They certainly were very scrupulous with the details."

[richelieu]

Il sito di "Aviation Week & Space Technology" si limita per ora, ed alquanto insolitamente, a riportare un comunicato dell'agenzia di informazioni "Reuters" .....

Fonte: AviationWeek.com

EADS Opts Not To Protest Boeing Tanker Win

By Reuters (Mar. 4, 2011)


Airbus parent EADS has conceded defeat in an epic, decade-long contest to sell aerial tankers to the Pentagon and confirmed it would not protest the award of a $30 billion contract to Boeing.

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby expressed disappointment after Boeing won the contract on the third attempt, but said the U.S. company had undercut the bid to use European Airbus aircraft by a total of $2 billion.

“It’s clear the there is no foundation for protest,” he said, adding that the Air Force had followed the ground rules.

EADS confirmed its decision at a news conference after Reuters reported on Thursday that it was poised to waive its right to appeal the contract for 179 planes, turning its focus to other weapons contracts and acquisitions.

The move may ease transatlantic tensions over defense contracts but is likely to dismay lawmakers in Alabama, where EADS planned to assemble its fleet.

For Boeing, the move marks a double victory — keeping its 767 production line running for a decade longer, and blocking Airbus from establishing a commercial airplane manufacturing site in the United States on the back of the tanker deal.

EADS shares closed earlier down 0.4%. Boeing was down 1.28% at $70.43 after making big gains on Thursday.

The Pentagon awarded the hotly contested contract to Boeing last week, calling it the “clear winner” in a competition that Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said had devolved into a “low price shootout.”

Air Force officials had said EADS was entitled to protest if it believed errors were made, but that the Pentagon expected to prevail in any protest.

The EADS move paves the way for Boeing to begin work in earnest on an initial $3.5 billion development contract for the first 18 planes that it signed with the Air Force last week.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson said the news was almost all good for Boeing, allowing it to hold on to a core franchise and keeping its main rival out of the U.S. market.

But he said Boeing would be under intense pressure to perform under the very aggressive bid it submitted.

Degne di nota queste affermazioni .....

Flight International : "Boeing's proposed price was $4 billion less than EADS' offer, Crosby says."

AW&ST/Reuters: "the U.S. company had undercut the bid to use European Airbus aircraft by a total of $2 billion."

[richelieu]

In realtà il prezzo proposto da EADS superava del 10% quello di Boeing .....

Fonte: AviationWeek.com

EADS KC-X Price Exceeded Boeing By 10 Percent

By Amy Butler
WASHINGTON (Mar. 4, 2011)


The decision by EADS North America not to protest its loss of its $35 billion KC-135 replacement contract loss is largely being based on its adjusted price, which came in a full 10% above that of rival Boeing, according to senior company officials.

Chairman of the Board of EADS Ralph Crosby says the loss is a “dissatisfying outcome,” to a long competitive process. But ultimately the Air Force ran the KC-X competition “in accordance with all of the ground rules” and was “scrupulous” in detailing the factors leading to the decision.

The company spent roughly $45 million competing for this last round of the KC-X duel. EADS had won the contract in 2008 with then-prime contractor Northrop Grumman, but that source selection was scrapped after government auditors turned up procurement irregularities following a Boeing protest.

The Pentagon announced Boeing’s KC-46A won the most recent long-running duel Feb. 24. EADS received debriefings Feb. 28-March 1. The company had until March 7 to protest its loss to the Government Accountability Office, according to Pentagon acquisition chief David Van Buren (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25, March 3).

The Boeing price was $20.6 billion versus the EADS price of $22.6 billion, according to data provided by the Air Force in those debriefings, says Ralph Crosby, chairman of the board of EADS. These are the prices of developing and buying 179 KC-135 replacements, including adjustments made by the Air Force in accordance with the source selection rules.

According to Crosby, EADS has derived some estimates of the Boeing offer, which have not yet been confirmed by the Air Force or Boeing. They include a $500 million adjustment on the part of the Air Force in favor of Boeing for a fuel usage advantage of the 767-based design. The Air Force also calculated a $300 million advantage to Boeing for military construction costs, Crosby says.

The service estimated an advantage for EADS worth $800 million for the A330-based tanker’s performance in various warfighting scenarios included in the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment modeling tool.

Though willing to congratulate Boeing on its win, Crosby questions Boeing’s ability to deliver on its promises under the terms of the fixed-price contract.

Jean Chamberlain, a senior tanker official for Boeing, last week acknowledged “concurrency” in its development program and production. First flight for the KC-46A is slated for 2015 with 18 aircraft delivered by 2017.

[SuperMau]

First flight for the KC-46A is slated for 2015 with 18 aircraft delivered by 2017.

Richelieu,
aggiungi sta' data al tuo calendario, va'.....
Scommessina? 10 birre contro 1 che non ce la fanno ??
E 5 contro 1 che se ce la fanno, qualche altro programma ne risentira' pesantemente..

[JT8D]

Per completezza, aggiungo anche un articolo nella nostra lingua, riguardo alla rinuncia al ricorso da parte di EADS:

http://www.dedalonews.it/it/index.php/0 ... nker-usaf/

Paolo

[richelieu]

First flight for the KC-46A is slated for 2015 with 18 aircraft delivered by 2017.

Richelieu,
aggiungi sta' data al tuo calendario, va'.....
Scommessina? 10 birre contro 1 che non ce la fanno ??
E 5 contro 1 che se ce la fanno, qualche altro programma ne risentira' pesantemente..

Può anche darsi che la cavalleria accorra in loro soccorso ..... e chissà che non si chiami Alenia .....