Northrup Grumman / EADS win KC-X

Wow, never thought I'd see the day the USAF would buy a french airplane. When I first read this I thought it would be like the NG built JSTARS. Boeing airplanes, but modded by NG. Nope, completely new jets, which is good I guess, but wow. Just wow.
 
Well... we'll see what happens after the protest and congress gets involved.

Like the Northwest/Delta merger, it's not over 'til it's over.
 
Teller1900 said:
Wow, that sucks for Wichita.
Click to expand...

Not just Wichita. The airframes were to be built in Everett. 767 aircraft. We'll see how this all works out. Our congresscritters are well and truely stirred up about this one.
 
I agree, Tim. The patriotic side of me says build the Boeing. The realist side of me says just build SOMETHING! We need a new tanker more than any other platform in the inventory. For the crew's sake I hope this does not take forever to put in motion. I was sure it was going to take the wings falling off a jet while crossing the pond to convince the stuffed shirts of the need for a new gas hauler.
 
Ghery said:
Not just Wichita. The airframes were to be built in Everett. 767 aircraft. We'll see how this all works out. Our congresscritters are well and truely stirred up about this one.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, Wichita is just the most familiar territory for me. This is going to be a blow to all sides of Boeing.
 
Kind of a surprise, since the Air Force is going to have to build a lot of new concrete to handle the larger A330 airframes. The 767's were supposedly good to go at all existing tanker bases.
 
Ron Levy said:
Kind of a surprise, since the Air Force is going to have to build a lot of new concrete to handle the larger A330 airframes. The 767's were supposedly good to go at all existing tanker bases.
Click to expand...

Expanding airports is another real popular item right now.

Don't suppose it's a negotiating tactic.

Perhaps to make a few congressmen look good in keeping Jobs in Ameriica:dunno:
 
Not that we're likely to invade France, but wasn't it a policy to keep major military contracts "inhouse" to the point of buying worthless, obsolete equipment just to keep the manufacturer afloat? Quite a departure from usual government fare.
Seems rather shortsighted going overseas for something they can get closer to home.
 
Ron Levy said:
Kind of a surprise, since the Air Force is going to have to build a lot of new concrete to handle the larger A330 airframes. The 767's were supposedly good to go at all existing tanker bases.
Click to expand...

And wasn't the Boeing aircraft the one that actually was designed to the spec, while the Airbus kinda went overboard?
 
Viewing Boeings history of scandals, late deliveries, cost over runs, this shouldn't be a surprise.

The P-8 was due on line by 2010 the design hasn't been finalized yet.

The 787 dream liner has not test flown yet, and it's delivery date was June this year.

Boeing has been back sliding since they lost their compition and have been depending upon congress to protecting them.

I hope it works out for them I hate seeing militry hardware being built off shore. But of course half of all boeing jets are now built in China.
 
AS for Congress part of the deal with Northrup is that Airbus is going to build a factory in Mobile Alabama. So there is already things being thrown at Congress to help in people's districts. Considering the dirt that had already been flying around this, e.g. Congress forced the bidding and open contract process after Boeing already had it locked up, I do not expect them to go too crazy over this. I fully expect them to allow this to go forward.
 
BREAKING NEWS: GAO gives Boeing victory in tanker protest

BREAKING NEWS at the top of WSJ.com:

BREAKING NEWS:
GAO gives Boeing victory in tanker protest, says Air Force made significant errors in tanker award. Full article coming soon.

EDIT: Article has been posted
 
WHAT?!!!!!!!

Wow, I'm going to read the articles asap. I really wasn't sure if I bought Boeing's argument about "we would have offered the 777 if the AF told us they wanted bigger" since this was all about keeping the 767 line open. You KNOW there was political pressure and PLENTY of it on this decision.

OK, time to read.
 
Investigators found that the Air Force essentially ignored its own evaluation criteria in weighing the two proposals. The report also found that the service erred when it gave Northrop extra credit for having a larger aircraft that could carry more fuel, saying the decision violated the bid document's provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding" key performance parameters.

Well alrighty then.

I'd like to bring back the days when everyone built a prototype for a flyoff. I know they did it for the f16, f22, and JSF. Expense, smexpense -- it's just a writeoff. :D
 
flyersfan31 said:
Investigators found that the Air Force essentially ignored its own evaluation criteria in weighing the two proposals. The report also found that the service erred when it gave Northrop extra credit for having a larger aircraft that could carry more fuel, saying the decision violated the bid document's provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding" key performance parameters.

Well alrighty then.

I'd like to bring back the days when everyone built a prototype for a flyoff. I know they did it for the f16, f22, and JSF. Expense, smexpense -- it's just a writeoff. :D
Click to expand...

Actually, both companies had sold tanker versions of the aircraft already, to other countries (Japan for Boeing, Australia for EADS, etc.).

The issue is somewhat beyond a mere head-to-head comparison of the aircraft performance numbers, in any case.

(Disclaimer: I work for Boeing, but don't speak for them. I'm not involved in the Tanker or any other aircraft program.)

Ron Wanttaja
 
flyersfan31 said:
Investigators found that the Air Force essentially ignored its own evaluation criteria in weighing the two proposals. The report also found that the service erred when it gave Northrop extra credit for having a larger aircraft that could carry more fuel, saying the decision violated the bid document's provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding" key performance parameters.

Well alrighty then.

I'd like to bring back the days when everyone built a prototype for a flyoff. I know they did it for the f16, f22, and JSF. Expense, smexpense -- it's just a writeoff. :D
Click to expand...

The findings were pretty alarming. Even if the EADS proposal is a better product, the AF can't play these sort of sourcing games. <spin-zone> I see why Gates cleaned house... and I wonder if more bloodletting is in the pipe? </spin-zone>

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Yeah. While NG may have built a better tanker, it appears that that wasn't what the USAF asked for, or what they said was important to them.

Not sure how they'll be able to make this right, without sending it all the way back to the starting point.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yeah. While NG may have built a better tanker, it appears that that wasn't what the USAF asked for, or what they said was important to them.

Not sure how they'll be able to make this right, without sending it all the way back to the starting point.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Air Force doesn't have to do anything. The GAO's findings are non-binding.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top