It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NG threatening no bid in KC-X

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Northrup-Grumman has submitted a letter to the Air Force stating that without major changes to the RFP for the KC-X they would not submit an aircraft for bid. The way it stands right now Boeing will win no matter what NG does. The current RFP uses the KC-135R as a baseline, and all 373 points carry equal weight. This means that the amount of lavatory water is as important as the amount of cargo and fuel offload. It`s also set up where the lowest bid wins based on price not performance. Since the KC-767 is smaller and less expensive than the KC-45 Boeing wins no matter what NG does. I`m starting to think that the -135s will be flying in 2050 at this rate with no replacement in sight.

Copies of the article and the letter can be found on www.flightglobal.com




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
no-bid contracts are one of the reasons for the enormous amounts of wasted money, it only produces faulty equipment, components which require even more no-bid contracts to fix the piece of crap, and lets not forget what ole Rummy said on 10 Sept 2001. Basically the pentagon will lose 25% of its budget to a black hole.





I am interested in the KC-X, I had previously worked on the 135R and would like to see how they design the boom pod for the KC-X. S&F



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sourdiesel
 


This isn`t no bid like the AF is automatically giving the contract to NG, this is no bid like "we can`t win anyway so we aren`t going to offer our plane." They would withdraw freom the latest attempt to award the contract and probably protest it again.

As for the boom it`s going to be fly by camera and the boomer is going to be in the cockpit.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
NG got thorougly boned on this one, they had an extremely viable plan ready to go, and pretty much had it in the bag, that is until Boeing started whining. I guess some contractors need a bailout too, considering the hit they had to take with the Washington plant.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wingnut01
 


Close but NG/EADS AND Boeing pretty much both said before the chouice was made they would appeal, so had the 767 won NG/EADS would hav ebeen making noise.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Bah, rightfully so! Sorry just arguing for arguments sake now
Gotta go where individual loyalties lie.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Its pretty clear that the whole process is a sham. Why not just be honest and say 'we want to buy Boeing' and have done with it. The USAF needs this aircraft urgently and even if the KC767 is inferior to the KC-330, it is still far superior to the half-century old relics currently in use. When the choice was to be based on capability, it led to the wrong plane. We all know it, why pretend? they should stop vacillating and just do it.

If the USA is happy for the UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia et al to have a superior capability in this area, so be it. Its not like its a combat aircraft.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


The problem here is that politicians are involved. The USAF wants the best plane. The RFP as was written in the draft (which is the problem) was written by the Undersecretary of Defense for Procurement. If they would let the AF choose their own plane and stop getting in the way, we`d already be building a new tanker.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Came across this earlier:

www.aviationweek.com.../asd/2010/10/20/02.xml&headline=Additional%20Fuel%20May%20Pay%20Off&channel=defense


Some extracts:




The Air Force is looking for more fuel offload compared to the smaller KC-135 tanker, but less than that carried by the larger KC-10, according to Grant. “The extra fuel on station [at long range] pays off” in the studies dealing with future warfare, she says. Operational burdens in future conflicts may be less because there will be fewer manned tactical aircraft to refuel, another result of tightening defense budgets. But they may be increased again by the need to service unmanned surveillance and strike aircraft from both the Navy and Air Force.

In addition, any work to add sensors to the tankers also will have to wait, she says. However, the extra time on station will make the joint surveillance and tanker mission more likely to be a success, Grant says. Moreover, the new tankers are designed with more electrical power, additional cooling and upgraded electronics to accommodate add-on sensors and make the tankers into information nodes.



*IF* true.... thats is a big help for the EADS-NA bid.

Wonder what Boeing would do if the decision went the other way (again).



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join