Boeing to protest KC-X

found a very tastey bit of info here that really smacks boeing up:

"EADS also impressed potential customers by investing its own money to build and test a prototype of an innovative boom that will be used to transfer fuel between planes. Boeing, reinforcing its image as comfortable incumbent, carried out tests using an older boom design, and said it would build a next-generation boom only if it won the big U.S. contract.

Even Boeing's tanker victories in Japan and Italy have been tarnished. Japan received its first tanker in February, about a year late, and Italy's program is about two years behind schedule, with the first aircraft now expected for delivery in the next few months. Although some of the delay stems from modifications requested by the customers, Boeing has acknowledged technical problems as well. "

www.businessweek.com...


so all this harking on about `wet transfers blah blah blah` was all bollocks as they hadn`t even built the boom for the programme as the one on japan`s tankers is different and not as advanced as the one proposed :O

im sorry but i have to laugh now at boeing

www.defense-aerospace.com...

In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers

can someone tell me which aircraft made in

1933 was an air to air tanker and was in use by whom please.

since it appears the USAF would have loved this ability in WW2 to , i dunno , bomb japan instead of flying bomber off carriers - but apparantly boeing thought not to share this amazing innovation with anyone.

Hmmm, here are the points from Boeing, taken from that link, with my own, non expert, thoughts;

Factor 1 -- Mission Capability
-- Boeing scored "Blue (Exceptional) and Low Risk" in this area – the highest possible rating in the most critical "factor" in this competition.
-- The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives). Indeed, the Air Force evaluated Boeing as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than the competitor.

Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) received the highest rating possible, 2) met or exceeded all KPP thresholds and objectives, and 3) was graded as having significantly more strengths than the competition

Fine and dandy, except when you remember that the original specification was essentiallywritten around the KC-767 so you would expect nothing less from it surely, this was the root behind NG's protest as it meant there could only be one possible winner - the KC-767! Northrop persuaded the USAF to consider the benefits of the additional capability that could be obtained without going to a significantly bigger airframe and without waiting years for it to be developed (ie the KC-777) The USAF agreed and so the KC-330 emerged the clear winner.

Factor 2 -- Proposal Risk
-- Boeing's proposal risk was rated "Low"
-- Surprisingly, the competitor was also rated as low despite the high risk associated with its evolving multi-country, multi-facility, multi-build approach as contrasted with Boeing's integrated approach to design, build, and certification in existing facilities with experienced personnel

Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) was low risk, 2) had an integrated and lean build approach, and 3) the competition should have been assessed greater risk for its complex and unproven multi-country build approach.

This is at odds with the USAF's own announcement that they rated the 767 as high risk due to it being an unflown version plus Boeings reluctance to develop the new boom until after the deal was signed, also, Boeing, are you completely sure about that ever so risky "evolving multi-country, multi-facility, multi-build approach " that you yourselves simply do not do, of course not. As for 'unproven', Airbus is now in its fourth decade of building planes this way. I think the technical term for this argument is 'bollocks'.

Factor 3 -- Past Performance
-- Boeing's past performance was rated "Satisfactory"
-- Northrop Grumman/Airbus was also rated satisfactory, despite having no relevant tanker experience and having never delivered a tanker with a refueling boom
-- Press reports indicate that some of the most relevant programs for Airbus (the KC-30 for Australia and the A-400M) are both significantly over cost and behind schedule.
Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) had satisfactory past performance, and 2) relevant Airbus programs like the Australian KC-30 tanker and the A-400M are struggling.

In terms of past performance the point about N-G is fair enough, but before throwing stones Boeing might like to look at the 787, KC-767 (ahem) and Wedgetail to name but three, factor three result - a draw.

Factor 4 -- Cost/Price
-- As determined by the RFP, "Most Probable Life Cycle Cost" (MPLCC) was the only measure of cost to be assessed
-- The Air Force described the cost visibility information Boeing provided as "unprecedented" and rated Boeing's MPLCC cost "Reasonable," "Balanced," and meeting "Realism" criteria – all the highest ratings a competitor can receive
-- As recognized by the Air Force itself in 2002, the significantly bigger A-330 would demand a greater infrastructure investment with dramatically lower operational effectiveness

Therefore, it follows that 1) Boeing's MPLCC was judged by the Air Force to be realistic, 2) Boeing's submitted MPLCC were significantly lower than the Air Force adjusted MPLCC costs and, 3) the Air Force adjustments to Boeing MPLCC costs effectively deprived Boeing of the benefits associated with its integrated in-line production approach.

I freely admit that most of factor four is beyond me, but the glaring falsehood right in the middle of it does stick out like a sore thumb, the A330 is not 'significantly bigger' than the 767, it is a direct rival to it, and proven to be superior on the commercial; market, where money is the overriding factor, that is why commercial sales of the previously highly successful 767 died a death when the A330 appeared. THIS was why Boeing needed the 787 in the first place, unless they have forgotten?

It does go on but I won't bore you any more, one of the chief complaints being that the changes to the RFP allowed a biiger aircraft to be considered, which translates as they are unhappy that a more capable aircraft was offered for an order they think should be theirs by right. Tough luck.

Later on Boeing goes on (more than once) about the delays to the A400M, why? That project was not offered to the USAF and has no connection to Northrop Grumman - its not like Boeing don't have late programmes is it (see above).

There is also a tendency to refer to the 'N-G/Airbus' bid despite the fact that Northrop Grumman were the bidders by themselves and their teaming with EADS (not Airbus) is an industrial arrangement similar to what Boeing itself has done several times with BAE. This can only be a rather cynical and transparent ploy to keep the nationality and subsidy issues in the forefront of peoples minds, despite the DoD's previous ruling that the subsidy row was irrelevant.


Looks like Boeings stance is just a case of dummy throwing after all

[edit on 12-3-2008 by waynos]

[edit on 12-3-2008 by waynos]

reply to post by Harlequin


As the old saying goes, never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

As far as I can see, every point raised by Boeing is simply a LIE, (er sorry I must mean SPIN, if that's still the current term for LIES, LIES and more LIES).

And spin wrapped in a flag, to appeal to the worst manifestations of human nature. But it is a successful formula, it was quite successfully used by Adolf Hitler and Co - if you want to sell LIES, wrap them in a flag! And like Hitler, obviously the end justifies the means. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as you get the bucks!

Dummy Spit, Dummy Spit, Dummy Spit - Boeing you disgust me - You are very quickly getting a reputation for building crap that doesn't do what you say it will do - I wouldn't buy a potato peeler from you, because you are unreliable and untrustworthy!

Honestly, why would anyone want to buy anything from this company?

Personally, I think politicians are way too polite - it's about time some of them got up in the various parliaments of the world and straight out called some of these companies what they are - Corrupt and ruthless LIARS and CHEATS! Frankly, I think the 'illegal' arms dealers of the world are more likely to sell you equipment that will work!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 12/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Boeing has decided to put the US Air Force on trial for the surprise decision to opt for an Airbus aircraft for a $12.1 billion tanker deal, legally challenging the KC-X contract award to the rival Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team.

The airframer's formal protest filed on 11 March argues the USAF's decision should be overturned mainly because of two reasons: a series of improper changes made to a key evaluation formula and a judging system that unfairly discounted the relevance of Boeing's past performance on commercial aircraft.

The first complaint alleges that the USAF inserted last-minute changes into a highly detailed formula used to evaluate mission performance for both teams, but failed to notify the two bidders.

Boeing believes this action put its bid at a disadvantage. A separate Northrop business unit helped the USAF develop the evaluation formula, which was likely to allow Northrop's tanker team to spot - and respond - to the changes much sooner, says Mark McGraw, Boeing's KC-767 programme manager.

www.flightglobal.com...

The GAO has 100 days to review the bidding process and make a decision.

give up boeing - the changes made in feb were made to show the 767 in a better light , they will lose if they keep pushing this.

Just read an immense thread in another forum regarding this same subject. Seems to me that the Airbus is a better plane and beats the 767 in every respect. Boeing really have no option, their frankenstein 767, made out of -200, -300, -400 components was no competitor, I`ve heard some people talk about Boeing offering 787 or 777, but the first has never flown and the second is just too big.

My 2 cents.

a330 is better.
thats why the RAAF bought it.
Gas and ass hauling.
No contest.
Boeing caught with pants down.
Should of offered something larger

very interesting slant onwww.flightglobal.com...


they highlight

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule. She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

and yet the reply which is almost a non entry made me laugh:

An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented".

all PR and spin


[edit on 16/3/08 by Harlequin]

Not always PR and spin. The reality is, for major projects things can change after contract signature, and you might need to make unforseen changes. This isn't necessarily the contractor's fault. And when this happens, it usually delays things. Most projects anticipate slides in cost, development etc, and have contingencies for this. It isn't always just PR spin.

what i mean t was that the RAAF are saying that yes the A330-MRTT is behind scheduale - but the reason is they requested changes which made it late but neglected to mention that part

reply to post by Harlequin


Nah i knew what you meant.
Keep up the great work

oh yeah for more Boeing crap:

www.defense-aerospace.com...

While not mentioned by Mark McGraw, Boeing complains in its protest that the US Air Force “altogether failed to comprehend the inherent manufacturing genius of the 767 bid.” (see last paragraph on page 3). This may provide some insight into Boeing’s mindset regarding the tanker competition, and partially explain why the company was so upset to lose the contract.

like WTF - `manufacturing genius` - whats sort of junk statement is that; frankentanker has not been built and will never be built - it is NOT the 767`s that are being made for japan - as it uses parts from 4 different aircraft - and the boom will never be built either.

inherent manufacturing genius

It is inherently built by Boeing, therefore inherently must be better...


I mean, really. WTF are they smoking?


The 330MRTT is in testing right now, the KC-45 is an extremely small iteration on it (with the biggest change - the boom - already being tested).

The KC-767 for the USAF is not in the air, is not in production and only exists in hard drives.



A few key points on what we know to date:

1. The A330 will have lower development costs.
2. The A330 will be delivered quicker.
3. The A330 can carry more fuel.
4. The A330 can carry more cargo.
5. The A330 can carry more passengers.
6. The A330 can carry all of the above further.
7. The A330 has much lower development risk.
8. The A330 will have a much stronger parts backup going forward.
9. The A330 is a viable competitor for the KC-Y program in the future (unlike KC-767).
10. The A330 contract gets Airbus assembling aircraft in the US, and not just USAF contracted aircraft.


What exactly does the KC-767 have that is better than the A330MRTT/KC-45?

Well, from everything I have seen, read and talked to people in the know about, Boeing really screwed the pooch. When you have the arrogance to assume that you will win "hand's down", then you deserve to lose. And rather than accepting that their proposal sucked, they now go through the process of a GAO protest. Seriously, do we really want to get to the point where every capability decision gets protested? Move on, learn from the experience, and try better next time. Don't cry into your coffee that the big bad foreigner (which, considering that NG is the prime is somewhat disengenuous...) beat your bid. Boo bloody hoo.

Boeing Protest

This was a pretty interesting read. Apparently one of the complaints deals with the Cmarps system. Northrup Grumman developed it for the USAF, and Boeing has little or no experience dealing with it. It's supposed to be a manpower intensive system that requires a learning curve before you really understand it.

While it has been load of fun to see all of the anti US sentiment in thread, this tidbit was interesting:

Two “major combat operations” scenarios were tweaked to add additional ramp space in the Cmarps model that doesn’t actually exist. This allowed for the KC-30 to gain enough access at a “priority base,” according to Boeing officials, that it otherwise would have been too large to achieve. Limited ramp space can make operations with larger aircraft more difficult, because of tight parking and ground maneuver space. Though company and Air Force officials didn’t identify that location -- the operational scenarios are actually classified -- it could be Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. According to an earlier Air Force analysis of various tanker models, only four A330-based tankers can operate from that base assuming 30 ft. of space between rows of parked aircraft and interior taxi ways as well as a standard 50 ft. wingtip-to-wingtip distance between for aircraft parking.
www.aviationweek.com.../KCX031908.xml&headline=USAF%20On%20The%20KC-X%20Defensive%20A%20Year% 20Ago

If true, part of the Airbus win included modified base structures that do not exist.

also

Space between parked aircraft, however, was another change made by the Air Force during the competition, Boeing says. The service cut the space between parked tankers in half, to 25 ft.,

from the same source.

All of this is irrelevant however if congress kills the deal by simply not funding it.

The other scenario Im hearing rumblings about is a split buy.

[edit on 3/22/08 by FredT]

www.defensetech.org...

The Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System (Cmarps) was designed for the Strategic Air Command in the 1980s and is now used by planners in Air Mobility Command

Boeing have been able to use this system for at least 20 years - so anything about not using it is utter crap.

The airfoce wanted a trip 7 based aircraft back in 2001 = it was booing which said no - here have a 767 one , and thats why some employees are in prison

If true, part of the Airbus win included modified base structures that do not exist.

Surely you mean Northrop Grumman win, don't you Fred?

I don't see what you are getting at with the 'anti-US' bit. There's a lot of anti-Boeings silly tantrum in here, which isn't the same thing.


This imaginary ramp space argument is one that puzzles me though. Are Boeing basically saying the USAF bought the 330MRTT on the strength of N-G saying 'we know it can't fly from there but imagine if it could' 'cos I don't get that at all? Would the USAF be stupid enough to fall for such a transparent trick, or have I missed the point completely?

The standard USAF ramp space requirement is 50', for SOME bases however, to operate the same number of aircraft out of there (or even more than one or two aircraft) they have to cut it down to 25'. That's what they did with the proposal for the KC-45. They changed the ramp space to 25' clearance, which allowed the Airbus (NG) aircraft to fit into ramps that it wouldn't be able to with NORMAL clearance, according to Boeing, but that the KC-767 WOULD be able to get into because it's the smaller aircraft.

[edit on 3/22/2008 by Zaphod58]