KC-X Competition to end February. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#13599606
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=AIR

PARIS - EADS expects a selection in February for the $35 billion contract to supply new KC-X air tankers to the U.S. Air Force, which is the subject of fierce competition with archrival Boeing, Sean O'Keefe, chief executive officer of EADS North America, said Jan. 12.
EADS is bidding its A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport in the competition to replace the aging U.S. Air Force KC-135. (EADS)

"The contract award, which was announced as part of the request-for-proposal solicitation, was to have been around the middle of November last year. It has moved further toward next month, just as a consequence of due diligence," O'Keefe said at the European group's New Year's press conference.
Related Topics

* Europe
* Americas
* Air Warfare

"The process requires a series of individual steps for the ultimate request for a final price revision, previously referred to as 'best and final offer'," O'Keefe said. "That is due to be requested, based on current information we have from the Department of Defense, later this month."

On the due diligence process, O'Keefe said, "Not a dramatically larger number of inquiries but they want to make sure they get it absolutely right. There's no question, this is a very careful diligence process to try … to assure this is not contestable, as far as they can possibly make it. They have been very open about that."

He added, "Every indication would suggest that next month is more likely to be the contract award targeting period."

EADS Executive Chairman Louis Gallois earlier said the Air Force competition for 179 tanker aircraft was a key element in efforts to expand in the U.S. market, seen as the second pillar of the company's growth strategy.

"This is an important business opportunity for both EADS and Airbus, and we approach it as just that - a business opportunity with a clear objective to gain reasonable money," Gallois said.

Mergers and acquisitions are also part of EADS' plans to expand in the U.S. market, he said. Price and opportunity will weigh on decisions in this area.

"We need to be more present in the U.S.," Gallois said.

Besides bidding for the air tanker contract, Gallois pointed to the Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) program as a source of organic growth in the U.S. military market.

The LUH meant EADS has a "significant position in Army procurement," Gallois said. EADS also conducted the first flight of its demonstrator for the Armed Aerial Scout program for the U.S. Army, its next target, Gallois said.

"That is why we are investing in Texas and Mississippi," he said.

The other two pillars of EADS' future development rely on keeping its roots in Europe, where its military programs are launched, and emerging countries, where the company would pursue local partnerships and technology exchange.

The press conference was held at the assembly facilities of Astrium, the space division of EADS, at Les Mureaux, on the western outskirts of the capital.


Antonov is competing, as is Boeing (777/767) & Airbus (330) among others. As you are no doubt aware, this will hopefully bring to a final decision a bid that has been stalled, canceled and overturned on several occasions.
By Rilzik
#13599620
In the article, they make it seem like the KC-135 is a EADS plane but it is American plane. I think it is just the caption of the image in the article.

This brings up an Important point though. The air tankers are no small fleet and the americans going with a European company (besides BAE) instead of a American company is a good thing in my eyes. Not in every aspect, but maybe this will help Europeans to view American products as more viable. The whole 'I pat your back, you pat mine' saying, not that I actually want any of you freaks patting my back.

I'm all for standardization of US and EU military equipment. Hell Europe deserves this bone, look how we screwed them with the F-35b and the carriers they were building for it. Now they will have to use the C model. Although the F-35 has many manufactures in europe.

Now that I think about it, weren't we leaning toward the euro model for a while now?

Seem to me and it may be impossible, but a stealth or at least somewhat stealth air refueler is what we need.
User avatar
By MB.
#13599627
The F-35B will eventually go into production. The US primarily needs them for the Marine Corps but the Harrier IIs will do for several more years. As far as I know the new Euro carriers won't be built for a number of years yet so there is really no immediate harm is delaying the B variant's production cycle.
By Rilzik
#13599633
MB. wrote:The F-35B will eventually go into production. The US primarily needs them for the Marine Corps but the Harrier IIs will do for several more years. As far as I know the new Euro carriers won't be built for a number of years yet so there is really no immediate harm is delaying the B variant's production cycle.


I agree it will happen, it has too, as there is no other alternative. The US and I have been meaning to bring this up has about 8 or so european sized carriers called amphibious assault ship's besides the normal super carrier fleet. These can be used as smaller carriers for F-35b's, and in my opinion therefore has a very low chance that they will not build them. As for using F-35b's on land for the marines hasn't been demonstrated historically, the logistics is insane. For the mini-me carriers is something else. These mini carriers are a little know huge part of the navy.

The Euro carriers won't be built any time soon but neither will F-35A/C's let alone B's. The problem is that places like Britain that have already switched over their order to C's instead of B's. From my understanding their new carriers are optimally designed for the B's, although I may be mistaken and they can diffidently handle C's if they need too and likely will. Anyway, if they wait for B's they will have a small but significant time where they have a carrier with none or very obsolete planes.

I would argue since countries are already pulling out of B's it is a worry since it means they will cost more in the long run. I don't know, I can understand the current position with speeding up the A/C models and delaying the B. I hope it means redesigning the entire engine because it seems clear they didn't get it right. Any STOL has to be near perfect considering the mediocre performance with the f-35A/C models.
User avatar
By MB.
#13599659
I said the Marines want the F-35Bs because Marine Corps Aviators operate them. The Navy may crew the LHDs but the USMC has the pilots.

The problem is that places like Britain that have already switched over their order to C's instead of B's. From my understanding their new carriers are optimally designed for the B's, although I may be mistaken and they can diffidently handle C's if they need too and likely will.


If the HMS Queen Elizabeth has electromagnetic launch rails (it appears that it will) then it will have no problem launching F-35Cs

I hope it means redesigning the entire engine because it seems clear they didn't get it right.


Can you elaborate?
By Rilzik
#13599898
I hope it means redesigning the entire engine because it seems clear they didn't get it right.


MB. wrote:

Can you elaborate?


The two year probation that the F-35b is on as of earlier this month, is for stepping back and up to redesigning the entire engine. This isn't where I first read about this but gates said they have two years to got the engines working and he doesn't care how they do it.

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/12/video ... l-landing/

If the HMS Queen Elizabeth has electromagnetic launch rails (it appears that it will) then it will have no problem launching F-35Cs


I was thinking more along the lines of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_%28L61%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ai ... _%28550%29

It is my understanding that they both, the UK and French carriers were initially designed for STOL and it wasn't until recently that they decided to redesign them. I'm far from an expert but I think these smaller carriers are suboptimal for CTOL, and if your going to go CTOL then you might as well go all the way and build a supercarrier.
Last edited by Rilzik on 13 Jan 2011 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By killim
#13599900
The winner will be... surprise, surprise... Boing!

and

The looser will be... surprise, surprise... US taxpayer!
User avatar
By MB.
#13617343
Update:

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/31/so-bo ... -now-what/

So Both Sides Got Subsidies in KC-X, Now What?

The World Trade Organization has apparently issued a final ruling saying that Boeing did indeed recieve unfair — not illegal — subsidies that benefit the development of its aircraft fleet.

According to the New York Times, the WTO ruled, in a confidential report, that Boeing received about $5 billion in subsidies. The WTO focused on about $24 billion in R & D contracts Boeing receives from the military and NASA along with Washington state tax breaks that European governments say gave the Chicago-based company a technological and financial edge.

Last summer, the WTO found that EADS had received billions in unfair subsidies as well, something that was key in allowing EADS to eat up large amounts of Boeing’s market share around the globe, according to the U.S. trade representative.

This comes as the U.S. Senate is once again taking up the so called, “Level-Field” bill, that will require the Pentagon to factor in the impact of the subsidies in its evaluation of Boeing’s KC-767-based and EADS A330 MRTT-based offerings in the $35 billion KC-X contest.

Many who have watched KC-X closely didn’t think the proposed law would have a chance of getting passed before the Air Force choses its new tanker (something that may happen in the coming weeks).

A similar bill was first introduced in late Spring of last year when it appeared the service would award a contract sometime between September and mid-November.

Oh how things have changed. The Air Force has repeatedly delayed the contract award so that it can be as confident as possible that this round of the contest has been run by the book.

Remember, in 2008, Boeing successfully protested the service’s award of KC-X to EADS, claiming that the requirements laid out in the RfP for that contest weren’t clear enough. That came after the whole Darleen Druyun tanker leasing affair.

Hopefully this bill won’t delay the contest any longer. The KC-135 is great, but as we all know, the oldest are 50 years old and desperately need replacement. So both sides received subsidies. Fine, lets just move on with the contest.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/01/31/so-bo ... z1Cn3lIN58
Defense.org
User avatar
By MB.
#13639737
Boeing wins, again.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Air Force has awarded a $35 billion contract to build the next generation of air refueling tankers to Boeing Co.

* This artist's rendering shows Boeing's NewGen Tanker.The company will build the Air Force's next generation of air refueling tankers.

AP

This artist's rendering shows Boeing's NewGen Tanker.The company will build the Air Force's next generation of air refueling tankers.

EnlargeClose

AP

This artist's rendering shows Boeing's NewGen Tanker.The company will build the Air Force's next generation of air refueling tankers.
Ads by Google
Vancouver Coupons
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day.
Like doing Vancouver at 90% off!
www.Groupon.com/Vancouver
Contract Management
Get Trained & Prepare for Contract
Mgmt. Certification 100% Online.
VillanovaU.com/ContractManagement
Fire Tanker Manufacturer
Midwest Fire Equipment
Class company dedicated to tankers
MidwestFire.com

The announcement was made at the Pentagon late Thursday after the financial markets closed. It was certain to be welcome news in Washington state and Kansas, where much of the work on the tanker will be done.

The decision was a blow to the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the Airbus parent that also had bid for the contract. It was a major disappointment for Alabama, which had been counting on the work at a long-shuttered military base in Mobile.

The Air Force has tried for nearly a decade to replace its aging fleet of 1950s-era tankers, the equivalent of a flying gas station.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ract_N.htm
User avatar
By MB.
#13643930
I made an amateur mistake today and mistook the new KC-46A for the 787 when in fact it is the 767. Just FYI.

@FiveofSwords Doesn't this 'ethnogenesis' mala[…]

Britain: Deliberately imports laborers from around[…]

There's nothing more progressive than supporting b[…]

A man from Oklahoma (United States) who travelled […]