TANKER USAF - Appels d'offres

Countdown on KC-X tanker award

EADS CEO Louis Gallois [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] in Europe with his prediction that the USAF will award a tanker contract next month. The best and final bid will be submitted this month.
We previously noted that the final bids were due this month and a contract award expected next month.
Meanwhile, here is an interesting story on the tanker from KING5 TV in Seattle, with [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].
As readers know, the competition is a price shoot-out. As the KING story notes, Boeing continues to be worried about the benefit EADS has from subsidies found to be illegal by the WTO on the ability to under-price Boeing, but as we noted in [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], WTO may not have the effect Boeing fears; the withdrawal of Northrop Grumman as a partner to EADS has a much larger benefit to EADS’ ability to price the airplane.
Here are a couple of other key elements to ponder.

• [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] from an outfit with no connection to EADS or Boeing (which we originally linked in October) reminds us all of key considerations for the tanker.
  
• Life-cycle costs are a key consideration for the KC-X, and Boeing has done a good job of messaging in its contention that the KC-767 has lower life-cycle costs than the EADS KC-45. Boeing produced two studies (in 2008 and in 2010) from third parties supporting its talking point. Only last October did EADS [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] that, it claimed, looked at operational mission cost vs Boeing’s analysis of US Department of Transportation reporting of fuel usage for commercial 767-200ERs and A330-200s. EADS conceded that on flight training, the KC-767 has the advantage but on fuel delivery, it contends the KC-45 wins the analysis.
  
• What has not gotten a lot of attention are critical elements to the EADS analysis that mirror war-gaming scenarios in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and this is the anti-access/access-denied (A2/AD in DOD parlance) efforts by China in any Pacific conflict. A2/AD assumes forward bases will not be available and tankers will have to retreat to Guam and Australian. (Even Guam could be problematic in an A2/AD scenario.) This means tankers have to have more fuel to carry themselves to a forward support area, and that tankage capability also needs to be greater to refuel airplanes. This gives the KC-45 an advantage over the KC-767. This also was, in fact, an element in the 2008 win by Northrop over Boeing that did not get much attention. Don’t underestimate this importance in this competition.
  
• Also part of the life-cycle consideration is future supply chain availability. The KC-X is a 40-year airplane; the airlines have pretty much ceased buying the commercial 767 while the A330 continues to sell very well. The USAF can rely on airlines for support in the future as back-up to its own maintenance and parts, and the supply chain itself is a consideration. Just as the supply chain support for the KC-135 shrinks with each passing year, so will it more quickly for the KC-767 than for the KC-45.
  

These are just some of the factors that haven’t gotten a lot of headlines that should not be overlooked when the contract is awarded.

Ravitailleurs - Décision "proche" de l'armée américaine/Donley

WASHINGTON, 12 janvier (Reuters) - L'armée de l'air américaine "s'achemine vers l'achèvement" du processus de décision pour déterminer qui de Boeing ou d'EADS construira 179 avions ravitailleurs, a déclaré mercredi le secrétaire de l'US Air Force Michael Donley.
Il a indiqué à des responsables militaires et industriels qu'une audition prévue au Sénat portant sur cet appel d'offres n'affecterait pas le calendrier d'attribution du contrat, estimé à environ 50 milliards de dollars (38,4 milliards d'euros).
Michael Donley a refusé de donner une date pour cette décision, se contentant de dire que le contrat des ravitailleurs restait une "haute, très haute priorité" pour l'US Air Force et que "la sélection s'achemine son achèvement".
Lors de la visite de Nicolas Sarkozy aux Etats-Unis lundi, le président Barack Obama a promis à son homologue français une compétition loyale pour l'attribution de ce marché, a rapPorté la présidence française.

Boeing's Albaugh: 'I'm not holding my breath' on tanker award

While EADS North America Chief Executive Officer Sean O'Keefe expects the U.S. Air Force to award the aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] contract next month, Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said Wednesday that he's not expecting the decision soon.
Boeing and EADS are competing for the $35 billion deal, which was originally set for decision in November.
On Wednesday, Air Force Times [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] O'Keefe as saying: "Every indication would suggest that next month is more likely to be the contract award targeting period."
But Albaugh said: "I'm not holding my breath," according to video that The DEW Line blog [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].
Asked about O'Keefe's prediction, Albaugh said: "Whatever decision is made is one that is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny, and if I were to hazard a guess on a date I would say later rather than sooner."
O'Keefe and Albaugh agreed that Air Force and Pentagon officials are taking extra time to try to preclude the possibility of a successful protest. After Boeing protested a previous award to a Northrop Grumman-EADS team, congressional auditors found serious flaws in the process and Defense Secretary Robert Gates restarted the competition.
"(T)hey 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," O'Keefe said in the Air Force Times account.
Albaugh said: "I think They want to make sure that the decision that they make is one that's based on the (request for proposals) and the requirements that they put in place and is a decision that can easily be defended to all parties involved."

Senate sets hearing on Air Force tanker disclosures

The Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 27 on the U.S. Air Force's inadvertent disclosure of information about Boeing and EADS North America's aerial refueling tanker bids to the competing companies.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., visited Boeing Thursday to discuss the disclosure and the questions she said the Air Force must answer about the incident. At that time, the day and time of the hearing had not been set.

Is failure an option in KC-X competition?

With Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) set to hold the tanker hearing on Thursday (Jan. 27), it is clear the USAF continues to drag on its decision in the KC-X competition, which was expected this month. It now looks like March.
We’re going to ask a question that may be considered by some to be ridiculous on its face (and we’re not entirely sure it isn’t) but which, given all the twists and turns, starts-and-stops, hissy fits and more that’s happened in the painful saga of USAF tankers, we might ask, Why not ask this question?
Is failure an option?
There are any number of ways to define “failure” in this context:

1. The USAF can’t reach a decision. This is the most ridiculous of the scenarios.
   
2. The USAF reaches the “wrong” decision. This will depend on your point of view, won’t it? The supporters of one tanker or the other will believe the USAF is “wrong” if the tanker they support isn’t selected.
   
3. The USAF, in a surprise move, awards contracts to both companies. This may be the only politically acceptable decision (though we can think of sound strategic reasons to do so), but if this happens, is it a “failure” on the part of DOD to make the “best” decision?
   
4. The USAF concludes that one airplane failed the pass-fail tests of 372 criteria, ruling out procurement of the airplane. This is what we think of when we ask, Is failure an option? Readers will recall that when the RFP was presented by USAF and DOD for the 2010 competition, officials said any offeror had to submit an airplane that must pass all 372 mandatory requirements to make it to the final price-shootout that would determine the winner (subject to the so-called 1% rule in the RFP [see below]*). If any airplane offered failed any one of the mandatory requirements, USAF said, that was it–the airplane was ruled out.
   

So consider this: if the EADS KC-45 fails just one of the mandatory criteria, it automatically is eliminated from consideration. Same goes for Boeing’s KC-767.
Boeing has, from time-to-time, asserted that the KC-330 built for the Australian Air Force [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] This is relevant because EADS has touted its KC-45 offering as being based on the KC-330, which EADS claims is 90% compliant with the requirements.
And the separation last week of the refueling boom from the KC-30A destined for the Australian Air Force has become additional fodder for anti-KC-45 partisans on the pass-fail assessment.
EADS has, from time-to-time, asserted that the Italian tanker on which the KC-767 Boeing is offering the USAF is based, also fails to meet requirements. Both companies acknowledged additional work is required to meet the 372 criteria, and obviously both companies are striving to do so. EADS also notes, and there is no getting around it, that the KC-767 Next Gen offered to the Air Force, is a conceptual airplane, and it still hasn’t been delivered to Italy and within the circle we check in with, it is still said the wing pods don’t work as intended. Boeing and Italian sources are closed-mouth.
What if the USAF concludes that one company or the other (or, Heaven forbid, both) failed to meet all 372 requirements? This could be the “out” the USAF needs to support its decision on the contract award, rather than basing the decision on pricing, over which the whole WTO and illegal subsidy thing comes into play.
Suppose USAF says the KC-45 failed to pass 10 mandatory requirements (a number we’re making up for illustration and nothing remotely based on any insight), particularly if any one of these are critical to the combat or mission requirements (as opposed to, for example, flushing the toilet [which falls within the mandatory criteria pass-fail requirement])? It would be hard, but not impossible, to protest that the plane isn’t combat ready, day-one.
Suppose USAF says the KC-767 failed to pass 10 mandatory requirements, as described in the preceding paragraph? It would be hard, but not impossible, to protest this.
This scenario is a product of our own imagination and not something that’s been suggested to us by anyone. Failing one plane or the other would likely be more palatable to Congress than winning on price alone. If the plane fails, then {shrug} what can you do? If the price is close, and should the winner be EADS, then it’s that {@$#%&} illegal subsidy.
Is failure an option? Maybe it is.
*The 1% solution is the provision that if the low price bidder is more than 1% lower than the competition, this bidder wins. If the offered prices are within 1% of each other, there are an additional 92 optional criteria that will be evaluated, and this is where the so-called “extra credit” of having greater capabilities than meeting the minimum requirements gets valued, along with a bunch of other stuff. Whichever airplane is rated best on this additional criteria then wins.

SEVRIEN a écrit:"There's still a lot of golf left in that hole " !

EADS releases statement at tanker hearing

Update, 9:15 am: Our take on the hearing:

• A lot of political posturing and little substance.
  
• No minds changed; Boeing partisans support Boeing and EADS partisans support EADS.
  
• Senators for Boeing tried to turn this into a hearing about WTO and illegal Airbus subsidies, to no avail–but achieved political points they wanted to make; but does anybody care?
  
• The 15 second/3 minute/15 minute issue raised by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Boeing/SC) wasn’t diffused by committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and could lay the ground for a Boeing protest if it loses; see Trimble’s running log and closing commentary at the end of this post.
  
• We watched some but not all of the hearing and frankly came away thinking there’s more smoke than fire based on what we saw–which wasn’t all of the hearing and obviously doesn’t include any of the documentation the USAF provided. But nothing has been settled and this will continue to be an issue throughout the remainder of this competition.
  
• More than ever, we believe the only solution is to split the contract. We firmly believe there are sound strategic and tactical reasons to do so but politically it is the only choice that has any chance of moving forward with this contract.
  
• Nobody seems to give a damn about the needs of the warfighter anymore; it’s solely, entirely, 100% about Boeing vs Airbus and jobs rather than the Air Mobility Command and the needs of the warfighter.
  

(Boeing statement follows EADS; a link to download the EADS timeline follows Boeing; and a link to FlightGlobal’s running blog follows the EADS timeline.)
EADS released the following statement to the Senate committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), hearing information about the USAF inadvertent release of proprietary information on the KC-X procurement.
The hearing was called at the request of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Boeing/WA).

Sean O’Keefe

Chief Executive Officer

EADS North America

Statement for the Record

To the Senate Armed Services Committee

January 27, 2011

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to provide a statement to the Committee concerning the U.S. Air Forces’ inadvertent release of Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) data in the KC-X tanker procurement. The facts surrounding this incident, and the responsible actions taken by EADS North America, are straight forward and deserve to be clearly understood with full transparency. We are pleased to contribute in any way to that full understanding.
The constitutional role of Congress as exercised by this Committee is critical, given that it examines issues that affect the capabilities of our men and women in uniform. I appreciate the thoughtful and careful manner in which the Committee has engaged on the issue of data disclosure on the KC-X competition. It is my hope that this statement – and the information we have provided to the Committee – will add to your understanding of what transpired, as well as the care and precision with which EADS North America personnel dealt with a situation that they had no part in creating; and concurrently the professionalism of the U.S. Air Force response to make every effort to preserve the
integrity of the procurement for aerial refueling tankers.
Many Members ofthis Committee have considerable awareness of EADS North America.
However, some of you may not. I would like to take a moment to briefly tell you who we are. EADS North America is the American Division of a global, publicly-traded defense and aerospace company whose products contribute daily to the security of the United States. In addition, as a global aerospace company, EADS is the largest international customer of u.s. manufactured aerospace components, purchasing in excess of $11 billion a year in U.S. manufactured components – many from your respective states – that are integrated into our final products and platforms for export around the globe.
We are proud to be a major prime contractor to the Department of the Army today, providing the Lakota Light Utility Helicopter which is produced in Columbus, Mississippi, and today is operational in the United States, Europe, and the Pacific. Additionally, we are the largest platform provider to the Department of Homeland Security, and we have a substantial and responsible history as a supplier to other departments and agencies of the United States federal government.
As a company, EADS understands and embraces our obligations as a responsible provider of world class aerospace products to the U.S. military, as well as other government agencies and a myriad of commercial customers. We are a global corporation dedicated to bringing the best aerospace products to customers across the globe – just like our primary competitor, the Boeing Company. For the U.S. market, that means not just sellng our exceptional products here for a good value, but building them here in the United States, and creating jobs across this country and participating constructively in the communities in which our employees live.
The provision of capability and value to our customers is our foundation. As a corporate
partner to the U.S. Government, our guiding tenet is the operation of our business enterprise in a manner that upholds the highest ethical standards. Those standards include protecting the integrity of the procurement process. When mistakes are made, we exercise rigorous care to safeguard competition sensitive or proprietary information – whether that information concerns us or our competitors. In the particular matter under discussion today related to the data disclosure on the U. S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker aircraft competition, EADS North America acted correctly, quickly, and responsibly in addressing an incident that was not of our making.
Clearly, it would have been preferable that the data disclosure by the U.S. Air Force had not happened. However, after a full and thorough review of EADS North America’s actions, I can tell you with high confidence that our actions following awareness of the disclosure were timely, responsible and appropriate.
The facts surrounding this issue are clear. EADS North America received two data discs with security documentation from the U.S. Air Force. After proper in-processing, a cleared employee inserted and opened the first disc, reviewed and verified the EADS North America data, and closed it. He then inserted the second disc, and opened the first file on the disc. On seeing that the contents of the first page of that file contained competitor markings he closed the disc, removed it from the computer, and immediately secured it under appropriate security procedures. The total time that the file was open was less than 15 seconds.
Once the data disclosure was discovered, our employee immediately followed established protocols to ensure that the disclosure was contained, that the media on which the data were contained was controlled, and that no communication of the content of the disclosed data occurred. All of this was done in line with all statutory and regulatory guidelines, and the highest standards of business conduct. Specifically, on the night of the disclosure incident, EADS North America secured the competitive data, under two-person control, using the Defense Department approved security facility at EADS North America. We immediately reported the disclosure to the u.s. Air Force Contracting Officer, and carefully followed the spirit and letter of subsequent government direction. This included the isolation of the data and recusal of the individual who discovered the disclosure, as well as the prompt return of the data and the processing equipment to the U.S. Air Force. The employee who opened the discs was immediately instructed that he must not disclose any information regarding the content of the file he saw on the second disc (one page), and was assigned to administrative duties separate from the KC-45 program, pending the outcome of an independent investigation, and the investigation and determination by the U.S. Air Force.
Recognizing the importance of this unfortunate customer mistake in sending competitor data, I immediately initiated an independent investigation by outside counsel to review and document the events and actions taken by EADS North America to manage the situation. This investigation was thorough and comprehensive and its conclusions are the same as those reached by the U. S. Air Force’s own assessment and the government’s computer forensic analysis. We provided our complete and prompt cooperation with every aspect of the u.S. Air Force investigation, including providing the report of our internal investigation to the u.S. Air Force. The Committee has received the same report of investigation of the events relating to the November 1, 2010 incident. We have voluntarily made our findings and reports available to the Committee, as requested. We did this without making public statements that might exacerbate matters or adversely affect the course of this important procurement.
Unfortunately, it appears that some are attempting to exploit the U.S. Air Force’s inadvertent error by speculating on events which are not in evidence. Most disconcerting is the false assertion that EADS North America held for a month the competitor data incorrectly sent to us. I can assure the Committee that this allegation is simply untrue and is substantively contradicted by the government’s investigation and detailed forensic analysis.
EADS North America has a single goal in the KC-X competition-to ensure that the information necessary to support this competitive procurement is objectively provided to the U.S. Air Force such that a fair and timely decision can be made on this critical military system. Our actions over the more than five years of effort in this competition have fully demonstrated our commitment to that objective. There is no place in this competition for anything other than full transparency into the process leading to a fair outcome. The hearing by the Committee today can advance that objective by affirming through an examination of known facts that the unfortunate misstep of sending competitive information to both contractors was managed in good faith and full compliance by EADS North America and the U.S. Air Force. I stand by the actions taken by this company and our employees as fully compliant and responsible in accordance with the information provided as requested by the Committee.
We are prepared to answer any question this Committee may have regarding this data
disclosure matter. We wish the Committee well in your important work in support of our nation’s security and of our men and women in uniform.
Sean O’Keefe
Chief Executive Officer
EADS North America
Update, 7:06 am: Here is Boeing’s Statement:

STATEMENT OF DENNIS A. MUILENBURG

President and CEO, Boeing Defense, Space and Security
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the release of contractor proprietary data in the KC-X competition. I am not in a position to comment on specific actions taken by another company. I can, however, provide the facts regarding how Boeing handled the data it received. In all respects, Boeing’s conduct was consistent with the highest standards of ethically responsible behavior.

• On November 1st of last year, Boeing was notified by the Air Force that a classified IFARA package was available for Boeing to receive from Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB). Boeing understood the package contained Boeing’s interim IFARA evaluation data and score. Boeing retrieved the package and brought it to St. Louis for review and analysis, following strict protocol for the transport and handling of classified data.
  
• An analyst on the Boeing tanker program received the IFARA data package from Boeing Security in St. Louis that evening, and noted there were two disks and a cover letter. The analyst took the materials to a classified lab for review with another Boeing analyst. One of the analysts inserted the first disk into a Boeing classified laptop. The analyst reviewed the file structure and located the Excel file they believed would contain the Air Force Fleet Effectiveness Value (“FEV”) for Boeing. The analysts opened this file, confirmed it contained the Boeing KC767 FEV score, and printed this classified table. An analyst then copied the contents of this first disk to the classified laptop hard drive, and removed the first disk from the computer.
  
• The analyst then inserted the second disk into the laptop, and reviewed the file structure of that disk more closely in an attempt to discern what the difference was between the first and second disks. The analyst then noticed that the parent folder name of the second started with the prefix “K30B.” At that point, the Boeing analysts became concerned that the second disk could potentially contain competitor data. The analysts immediately removed the second disk from the laptop drive, and confirmed that the titles on the first disk did indeed contain references to “K67B” and the titles on the second disk contained references to “K30B.” At no point did the Boeing analysts open any files on the second (“K30B”) disk, nor did they make any copies or print outs of the second disk data. Our analysts did not forward the files or in any other way provide further access to the data to any other person.
  
• The cover letter, both disks, as well as the classified laptop used to open them, were all immediately sealed by security and locked in classified safes, and the analysts contacted the appropriate Boeing personnel to report the incident. Boeing notified the Air Force by phone and email that night, and received instructions the next day to repackage the materials and return them to WPAFB in Dayton. Boeing followed this direction, and couriered the materials back to Dayton that same day (November 2nd).
  
• On November 8th, the Air Force requested that Boeing also deliver its classified laptop computer to the Defense Computer Forensics Laboratory in Maryland on November 10th. Boeing complied with this direction.
  

Boeing’s behavior in this instance is emblematic of our conduct throughout this competition. We have competed fairly and aggressively. We have not sought extensions of time, we have complied with every deadline, and we have followed the strictures and procedures established by the Air Force acquisition authority to the letter. And you can be sure that Boeing will do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of this competition because of its importance to our USAF customer and our military men and women that we are honored to serve.
Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of the Committee: American industry relies on the integrity of the Defense Department’s acquisition processes. Your review of this matter is greatly appreciated.
Update, 8:00 am: [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] provided the Committee.
Update, 8:50 am: Steve Trimble of FlightGlobal kept a running log of the hearing. It may be accessed [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]. Absent an archived recording of the web cast committee hearing (someone let us know if they find one), Trimble’s running log is a good substitute.

US Senators call for new probe on KC-X evaluation process

Another investigation may be launched before the US Air Force can award the long-delayed KC-X contract for new tankers.
Seven US senators signed a letter on 27 January calling for the Department of Defense's inspector general to open a review on the "fairness and lawfulness" of the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]'s evaluation process.
The lawmakers' request - led by [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] supporter Sen Maria Cantwell of Washington - came less than 3hr after a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee adjourned without resolving a key new question about the controversial KC-X competition.
The senators repeatedly asked two witnesses if a mistake by USAF officials that sent proprietary documents to the wrong bidders could give one bidder an unfair advantage.
Neither panelist - DOD cyber crime director Steven Shirley and USAF Maj Gen Wendy Masiello - could answer the question, saying they are not directly involved in the evaluation.
"Today's hearing did not get at the core of the problem," Cantwell said in a statement.
The shipping mistake meant that an [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] North America employee opened a file containing the USAF's interim score on a key aspect of Boeing's proposal. Boeing received the same file from the USAF with EADS' data, but did not open it.
Shirley told the senators that a forensic analysis showed the file remained open on the employee's classified laptop for about 3min. For most of that time, the employee said he left the room to initiate a process to secure the compromised data.
The USAF attempted to "level the playing field" after the mistake by providing both bidders with the same sheet that was opened by EADS. But some senators questioned whether that action would be enough to make the process fair.
"It seems to me it could be an issue whether or not the exchange of the same information advantages one party or the other," said Sen Carl Levin, chairman of the committee. "The intent to level the playing field is clear. The attempt to do that is the right thing to do. But whether it succeeds or not is a different issue."
But other senators who have supported EADS' bid for the contract defended the USAF's process. Sen Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, said neither company should have an advantage due to the mistake.
"It wouldn't matter if the EADS employee had looked at that for 3hr or for 3 days," Wicker said. "Each company now has that one little bit of information from the other company. They've had it, and they could analyze it until the wee hours of the morning. Is that correct?"
"That's correct, sir," Masiello said.
Sen Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, challenged the basis for calling a hearing in the absence of a protest filed by other competitor because of the USAF's mistake. "I'm not quite sure why we're actually here."
But Boeing's supporters in the Senate remained alarmed. Some, including Sen Claire McCaskill of Missouri, used the hearing as a platform to criticize an acquisition process for KC-X that ignores what she calls illegal subsidies provided to [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].
"We've got foreign nations that are subsidizing companies and that's not relevant to our competition," McCaskill said. "That just doesn't make sense to me."
The letter that Cantwell sent to the DoD inspector general, however, focuses on the question of whether EADS received an advantage over Boeing.
"It is essential that we have the non-redacted version of the internal Air Force investigation that was conducted after the data breach as well as all relevant documents," Cantwell wrote. "Given the importance of the KC-X competition, we really do need to get down to the bottom of what happened."

Ravitailleurs: Boeing présentera un offre "ajustée" dans 10 jours

Le constructeur aéronautique américain Boeing, en concurrence avec Airbus pour fournir des avions ravitailleurs à l'armée de l'Air américaine dans le cadre d'un méga-contrat, a annoncé mardi qu'il présenterait le 11 février une proposition "ajustée" au Pentagone

WTO penalties on the tanker? Let’s talk about this

For all the spin back-and-forth Monday (Jan. 31) on the final, but still confidential, ruling on illegal subsidies to Boeing, little was said about the long-running (and overly-politicized) effort by Boeing and its supporters to have Congress force the USAF to take into consideration the previous WTO ruling on illegal Airbus subsidies for the KC-X competition.
Before we start our discussion today, let’s remind readers of our long-standing position that the USAF can’t do so for a variety of practical reasons and one major one: countries can only do so after the WTO authorizes sanctions, and unless the USAF postpones a decision on the tanker contract (or, more likely, screws it up yet again), the award date will come years before any WTO authorization is granted. We need not recount all our reasons nor the process; we’ve done this many times and a search of our Archives will yield postings from recent times on this.
Having stated this disclaimer, one of our reasons for opposing the effort by Boeing and its supporters was that the final Boeing decision had not yet been issued.
The decision is done, even if it is yet confidential for a few more months pending translation. However, with a final decision, the US Trade Representative could share a definitive ruling with the USAF for calculation.
Again, setting aside all the objections, here’s the interesting part that nobody has yet focused on, including Boeing (and this is really inexplicable):

1. Alleged subsidies for the Boeing 767, on which Boeing’s KC-767 is based, were not part of the EU’s complaint against Boeing and therefore there is no valuation to assess against the Boeing tanker;
   
2. Airbus claims the true subsidy valuation for the A330-200, on which the EADS KC-45 is based, is $54m, not the $5bn claimed by Boeing and its supporters. Just as the absence of hammering home Point #1 is inexplicable, so is Airbus hammering home Point #2.
   

For all the coverage we’ve given the subsidy issue on tankers, we don’t remember Boeing or its supporters discussing Point #1. We do now recall being briefed previously by Airbus on Point #2 but in the absence of repetitive messaging by Airbus, we forgot about it while Boeing has been extremely effective in touting the $5bn figure. But this figure is not in the Airbus WTO report.
There have been, through December 2010, 1,104 A330s orders. If $54m in illegal subsidies is all that is identified in the Airbus WTO report, this amounts to a mere $48,913 per airplane. If true, let USAF figure this in–who cares?
And Boeing gets $0.00 figured in because the alleged illegal subsidies for the 767 predate the period covered by the WTO-Boeing case.
The underlying questions are: Why hasn’t Boeing touted the 767′s status and why hasn’t Airbus and EADS (1) undertaken an aggressive campaign to set the record straight (as they see it) and (2) if all we’re talking about here is $48,913 per airplane, concede the assessment and move on.
Once more, this underscores the entire silliness of the WTO complaints with respect to the tanker issue.
And, of course, our readers know well that we think the WTO itself is meaningless; it has no enforcement powers and any sanctions ultimately authorized don’t have to be placed on the offending products or industrial sector–they may be placed on entirely unrelated industries. And this, more than anything else, is why we have disdain for the World Trade Organization

Boeing's new 767 line ready to make Air Force tankers

Boeing's new 767 assembly line is ready to make [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] for the U.S. Air Force. Now the company just has to get the $35 billion contract.
"I think we're going to win," Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Albaugh told employees Wednesday, during a dedication of the new assembly line in the company's wide-body plant in Everett and celebration of the 1,000th 767, which the Boeing is scheduled to deliver to Japan's All Nippon Airways later this month.
Boeing's 767-based [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] is competing against EADS North America's larger Airbus A330-based [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] tanker for the contract.
"It's the best airplane," Albaugh said. "It's an airplane that can put more booms in the sky. It's an airplane that's much more efficient to operate. It's an airplane that can forward deploy to all the fields that the Air Force needs it to go to."
And the plane is built by the best workers, he added. "This airplane is about saving the lives of U.S. airmen and airwomen, and (Boeing workers) know who those people are. Those people are their sons and daughters, their friends and neighbors. I'm certain nobody in Toulouse can say that."
EADS' headquarters are in Toulouse, France, although EADS North America plans to assemble KC-45s in Mobile, Ala.
Boeing moved the 767 assembly line into a new space that's 44 percent smaller than the previous line to make way for a planned [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] "surge" line and to produce 767s 20 to 30 percent more efficiently, allowing the company to offer a better deal to customers, including the Air Force.
The new line is the first that will send aircraft out of the north side of the plant, a configuration that required knocking a corner off of a building to create the required wing clearance of at least five feet.
The new line puts aircraft in a nose-to-tail configuration and will "pulse" planes along the line every 10 days. It could transition in the future to a moving line, as Boeing uses for the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], said Darrel Larson, director of 767 manufacturing.
The line also features a white epoxy floor, which is lighter, makes it easier to spot things that are out of place and creates a sense of cleanliness, Larson said.
The new production line isn't just about tankers, Albaugh said.
"If you look at the capacity of wide-body manufacturing in this world, there's not enough to satisfy the (commercial) demand," he said. "The 767 is still a very, very efficient airplane. In fact, from a trip standpoint, it's the most-efficient twin-aisle airplane being manufactured (it's also the smallest). And we have quite a number of customers we're talking to right now about buying this airplane for commercial use. And I think we'll be here, I hope, in another few years to be talking about the delivery of airplane 2,000."
Boeing netted orders for just three 767s last year, compared with Airbus' net of 62 A330s, and has just 50 remaining unfilled 767 orders.
Asked Wednesday about the 767's relative lack of demand compared with the A330 recently, Albaugh said: "We have figured out a way to take a lot of cost out of this airplane. And I think now that we've worked through that we're going to have a very competitive offering going forward."
Last week, [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] on the Air Force's inadvertent sending of information about Boeing and EADS' tanker bids to the competing companies, an EADS employee's viewing of that information and the Air Force's subsequent decision to provide information seen by the employee to both companies. Some of Boeing's congressional supporters suggested the incident could benefit EADS over Boeing.
Asked Wednesday whether he felt the disclosure provided EADS some sort of advantage, Albaugh said:

I don't know the answer to that. I do wish I knew the whole story of what happened. I think that's one of the reasons that elected officials that support us want to get to the bottom of that and I think at some point in time it will. I don't really know what happened. It hasn't been made clear to us. Nor has it been made clear to the people on Capitol Hill.

Albaugh declined to discuss reports that the disclosed information -- an assessment of the two planes' expected battlefield performance -- showed the EADS tanker scoring higher.
As for the old 767 production site, Albaugh said the 787 surge line could last beyond the ramp up of Boeing's North Charleston, S.C., 787 production line to support a planned total rate of 10 airplanes a month.
"In theory, with the Charleston facility and final assembly facility here and the surge line, we could get up to 15 airplanes a month. But I'm getting way ahead of myself predicting that we're going to do that," he said. "The real driving factor is going to be the supply chain and their ability to support increased rates. ... I do know this, if we could build at a higher rate than 10 a month we could sell them."
Finally Wednesday, Albaugh discussed the future of Boeing's 777 wide-body and 737 [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] jet.
"Right now the market is very robust for the 777-300ER," he said. "There are incremental improvements that we can make to the 777, and when we see a real threat in the marketplace, then you'll see us consider doing some major modification to that airplane. Quite frankly, I don't see anything in the near term and, quite frankly, I'm not sure if I see anything in the medium term that's going to compete with the 777-300ER."
The only potential competitor on the horizon is Airbus' A350-1000, which would be the largest member of the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] family.
Asked about that Wednesday, Albaugh said: "It's not clear to me that's a real airplane yet."
Boeing will announce its plans for the 737 "sometime this summer," Albaugh said.
The 737 faces competition from the newer Canadian [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] CSeries, Chinese [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] C919, Russian United Aircraft Corp. MS-21 and Airbus' re-engined [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].
Boeing executives have said re-engining the 737 appeared to make less sense than launching a replacement aircraft that would enter service in 2019 or 2020,
Asked if recent A320neo orders (see [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] and [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]) changed things, Albaugh said:

I think what you've seen on the neo are people who had bought or were going to buy the 320 classic now buying the neo. And if I were going to buy a 320 and I was offered either a neo or a classic, I think I would buy the neo as well. Our view on the neo is all that will do is make that airplane as capable as the 737ng (next-generation), and we think there are things we can do to the 737 to make it even more capable still. We have not seen a real compelling case yet for re-engining the 737.

Asked about how Boeing would apply lessons learned from problematic outsourcing on the 787 program to a 737 replacement, Albaugh said outside partners can provide access to more capital and technology, potentially lowering costs.
"I think the last time around we gave work to people that didn't have the experience that they probably should have had, and also we didn't provide the oversight necessary to make them successful," he said. "My view is we need to know more about our airplanes than anybody that's supporting us, which means that every major subsystem we do, we need to do some of it. It means that if they get into trouble we can help. If they get into a lot of trouble we can pull that work inside."
Problems with 787 work at the former Vought Aircraft Industries North Charleston, S.C., plant led Boeing to buy the site in 2009, Albaugh noted.
Referring to [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], he said: "We're taking a hard look at what we're going to do on the horizontal, and at some point we'll make a decision there."
It's "premature" to say whether Boeing would assemble a 737 replacement in Washington, Albaugh said. "But we know how to build airplanes here and do it well."
Boeing will not try to build a 737 replacement and take on big changes to the 777 at the same time, the way it did with the 787 and [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], Albaugh said.
"You're not going to see us do two concurrent major development programs. I think that we've proved to ourselves that there's a lot of risk associated with that," he said. "We're working very hard to make sure that we phase what we do over this decade in a fashion that doesn't get us where we are today with the 47 and 87."

Jeannot a écrit:Une approche financière des pénélités OMC sur le contrat KC-X

WTO penalties on the tanker? Let’s talk about this

For all the spin back-and-forth Monday (Jan. 31) on the final, but still confidential, ruling on illegal subsidies to Boeing, little was said about the long-running (and overly-politicized) effort by Boeing and its supporters to have Congress force the USAF to take into consideration the previous WTO ruling on illegal Airbus subsidies for the KC-X competition.
Before we start our discussion today, let’s remind readers of our long-standing position that the USAF can’t do so for a variety of practical reasons and one major one: countries can only do so after the WTO authorizes sanctions, and unless the USAF postpones a decision on the tanker contract (or, more likely, screws it up yet again), the award date will come years before any WTO authorization is granted. We need not recount all our reasons nor the process; we’ve done this many times and a search of our Archives will yield postings from recent times on this.
Having stated this disclaimer, one of our reasons for opposing the effort by Boeing and its supporters was that the final Boeing decision had not yet been issued.
The decision is done, even if it is yet confidential for a few more months pending translation. However, with a final decision, the US Trade Representative could share a definitive ruling with the USAF for calculation.
Again, setting aside all the objections, here’s the interesting part that nobody has yet focused on, including Boeing (and this is really inexplicable):

1. Alleged subsidies for the Boeing 767, on which Boeing’s KC-767 is based, were not part of the EU’s complaint against Boeing and therefore there is no valuation to assess against the Boeing tanker;
   
2. Airbus claims the true subsidy valuation for the A330-200, on which the EADS KC-45 is based, is $54m, not the $5bn claimed by Boeing and its supporters. Just as the absence of hammering home Point #1 is inexplicable, so is Airbus hammering home Point #2.
   

For all the coverage we’ve given the subsidy issue on tankers, we don’t remember Boeing or its supporters discussing Point #1. We do now recall being briefed previously by Airbus on Point #2 but in the absence of repetitive messaging by Airbus, we forgot about it while Boeing has been extremely effective in touting the $5bn figure. But this figure is not in the Airbus WTO report.
There have been, through December 2010, 1,104 A330s orders. If $54m in illegal subsidies is all that is identified in the Airbus WTO report, this amounts to a mere $48,913 per airplane. If true, let USAF figure this in–who cares?
And Boeing gets $0.00 figured in because the alleged illegal subsidies for the 767 predate the period covered by the WTO-Boeing case.
The underlying questions are: Why hasn’t Boeing touted the 767′s status and why hasn’t Airbus and EADS (1) undertaken an aggressive campaign to set the record straight (as they see it) and (2) if all we’re talking about here is $48,913 per airplane, concede the assessment and move on.
Once more, this underscores the entire silliness of the WTO complaints with respect to the tanker issue.
And, of course, our readers know well that we think the WTO itself is meaningless; it has no enforcement powers and any sanctions ultimately authorized don’t have to be placed on the offending products or industrial sector–they may be placed on entirely unrelated industries. And this, more than anything else, is why we have disdain for the World Trade Organization

48 913 $ par avion ! Boaf...
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

EADS n'améliorera pas son offre sur les tankers américains

EADS ne compte pas améliorer son offre pour le renouvellement des avions-ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'air américaine, a déclaré samedi le président exécutif de l'avionneur européen.
"Ce n'est pas dans notre style de procéder à des corrections hâtives à la dernière minute", a déclaré Thomas Enders dans une interview à Reuters en marge de la 47e conférence annuelle de Munich sur la sécurité.
Enders a estimé qu'EADS avait proposé une très bonne offre pour ce contrat alors que son rival américain Boeing a annoncé des "dernières modifications" à sa proposition.
EADS et Boeing doivent présenter leurs offres définitives d'ici le 11 février après des entretiens séparés avec des responsables de l'US Air Force lundi.
L'armée de l'air américaine attribuera dans les semaines ou les mois à venir ce contrat portant initialement sur 179 avions destinés à remplacer sa flotte de KC-135 âgés en moyenne de cinquante ans. La valeur du contrat est estimée entre 25 et 30 milliards de dollars (18 à 22 milliards d'euros).
De sources proches de l'industrie, on indique que le contrat pourrait être attribué dès le 25 février mais que la décision de l'US Air Force sera minutieusement examinée par les responsables du département de la Défense, ce qui pourrait retarder à début mars l'annonce publique de ce choix.
Les analystes s'attendent à ce que le perdant dépose un recours, ce qui pourrait retarder encore de plusieurs années l'achat de nouveaux "tankers".

Jeannot a écrit:Lors d'une réunion "Excellence Hour" Jim Albaugh lève un peu le voile sur les plans de la compagnie.

Boeing's future product developments

Details are quickly emerging regarding a meeting held between Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh and company employees about the future of company product development, according to those present at the meeting. The meetings, which are held periodically are known inside the company as an "Excellence Hour" connects senior leadership with employees in a large auditorium setting.

12:31 PM ET: Those at the meeting say that Boeing aims to begin design additional upgrades on the existing 737 starting in 2012 and continues to see re-engining as hit to the value of the existing 737 fleet. No specific timeline for introduction was given, though Albaugh says he sees updates to the cockpit more in line with the 787, as well as further improvements to engine fuel efficiency.

12:37 PM ET: Albaugh says he sees a tanker decision from the Department of Defense in February, though adds (speculates) that political scrutiny on whatever the final decision is will push a final award in 2012. Update: Albaugh [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Wednesday he anticipated an award announcement in March.

1:04 PM ET: Boeing 777 will be around for at least 15 years more, according to those at the meeting,....

.... signaling a medium term investment to improve the big twin.

Additionally, Albaugh says he likes the idea of a blended wing body aircraft for a future Boeing jet, though he says the FAA is not keen to the idea and the funds required to make a major research and development investment aren't really there to answer the unknowns on issues such as pressurization.

2:53 PM ET: Albaugh said future orders for the 747-8 are on hold as customers wait to see the outcome of the rework related to the inboard aileron and modal suppression.

While Boeing declined to discuss a formal timeline for starting development on further updates for the 737, the airframer says "incremental improvements are going to happen to the 737 no matter what" not withstanding a decision to re-engining or a build a new airplane. Further, Boeing says the expectation is that technology will be shared across all its airplanes.

Though company did say that yesterday's RBC report saying "most" of the top 25 737s do not want Boeing to re-engine the narrowbody, was "consistent with what we're hearing from customers."

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Jeannot a écrit:EADS n'améliorera pas son offre sur les tankers américains

EADS n'améliorera pas son offre sur les tankers américains

EADS ne compte pas améliorer son offre pour le renouvellement des avions-ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'air américaine, a déclaré samedi le président exécutif de l'avionneur européen.
"Ce n'est pas dans notre style de procéder à des corrections hâtives à la dernière minute", a déclaré Thomas Enders dans une interview à Reuters en marge de la 47e conférence annuelle de Munich sur la sécurité.
Enders a estimé qu'EADS avait proposé une très bonne offre pour ce contrat alors que son rival américain Boeing a annoncé des "dernières modifications" à sa proposition.
EADS et Boeing doivent présenter leurs offres définitives d'ici le 11 février après des entretiens séparés avec des responsables de l'US Air Force lundi.
L'armée de l'air américaine attribuera dans les semaines ou les mois à venir ce contrat portant initialement sur 179 avions destinés à remplacer sa flotte de KC-135 âgés en moyenne de cinquante ans. La valeur du contrat est estimée entre 25 et 30 milliards de dollars (18 à 22 milliards d'euros).
De sources proches de l'industrie, on indique que le contrat pourrait être attribué dès le 25 février mais que la décision de l'US Air Force sera minutieusement examinée par les responsables du département de la Défense, ce qui pourrait retarder à début mars l'annonce publique de ce choix.
Les analystes s'attendent à ce que le perdant dépose un recours, ce qui pourrait retarder encore de plusieurs années l'achat de nouveaux "tankers".

Intéressant ! Un moyen de pousser Boeing à la faute ou ....

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

PNAA conference: EADS likely to win tanker contest

We’re at Day 1 of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in Lynnwood (WA) and at the Defense Focus Day co-organized by the Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition, consultant Michel Merluzeau of G2 Solutions (Kirkland, WA) predicted EADS will likely win the KC-X competition.
Before the Francophiles go crazy, Merluzeau favors Boeing’s KC-767.
Merluzeau believes the capability for longer-range, greater fuel-carrying capability of the EADS KC-45 will be the deciding factors, as expressed in the IFARA matrix. The KC-30, as it was then known in 2008 when Northrop Grumman won the competition, scored better in IFARA. It also scored better than the KC-767 in IFARA that was inadvertently distributed by the USAF late last year.
IFARA scores the tankers on a variety of metrics and the larger KC-45 (or KC-30) bested the KC-767 in every category.

Jeannot a écrit:PNAA EADS devrait emporter la partie

PNAA conference: EADS likely to win tanker contest

We’re at Day 1 of the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference in Lynnwood (WA) and at the Defense Focus Day co-organized by the Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition, consultant Michel Merluzeau of G2 Solutions (Kirkland, WA) predicted EADS will likely win the KC-X competition.
Before the Francophiles go crazy, Merluzeau favors Boeing’s KC-767.
Merluzeau believes the capability for longer-range, greater fuel-carrying capability of the EADS KC-45 will be the deciding factors, as expressed in the IFARA matrix. The KC-30, as it was then known in 2008 when Northrop Grumman won the competition, scored better in IFARA. It also scored better than the KC-767 in IFARA that was inadvertently distributed by the USAF late last year.
IFARA scores the tankers on a variety of metrics and the larger KC-45 (or KC-30) bested the KC-767 in every category.

Ne vendons pas la peau de l'ours...

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Analyst: Boeing to deliver 5 787s this year; will lose major 737 customer

The Boeing Co. and Airbus could land as many as 1,500 total commercial jet orders in 2011, predicted an aerospace analyst Tuesday.

Analyst Richard Aboulafia, with the Teal Group, is speaking this morning at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference in Lynnwood.

I'll have updates from the conference throughout the day.

Here are few key tidbits from Aboulafia:

Boeing's 787: The Boeing Co. will deliver only five 787s this year. That's less than Boeing's prediction of up to 20 Dreamliner deliveries in 2011. For Aboulafia, though, the chance of 787 deliveries slipping into 2012: not inconceivable. Also, he believes Boeing won't ramp up as quickly on the Dreamliner as it plans.

Airbus' A350 XWB: Airbus' A350 XWB will be delayed until 2015. But, “this A350 thing, it's for real,” Aboulafia said. The analyst believes Airbus will learn a lot from Boeing's mistakes with the 787. As a result, the A350 will be a very good product, he said.

A380: The A380 is not a solid product. And Airbus' wasted investment in it means the company needs to be successful on the A350.

“This A350 better be as good as it looks otherwise it's going to be a very difficult picture for Airbus on the widebody front,” Aboulafia said.


On the single aisles: Aboulafia believes Airbus did the best it could with the A320 New Engine Option, given its resources.

And “I think there will be a defection from the 737 to the A320 neo or C-Series by the end of the year.”

Air Force tanker: "Nobody of consequence has changed their minds on this issue in many years," Aboulafia said. "This is gridlock .. there really isn't a way out of here unless there's a joint buy."

Although there are new delays brewing on the $35 billion contest between EADS and Boeing, Aboulafia sees a contract award announcement this year.

" Does it mean anything?" he said. "No. Congress will get its hands on things and mess it up."

Boeing, EADS turn in final Air Force tanker bids

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Boeing Thursday submitted its final proposal for the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] contract and competitor EADS North America said it also planned to do so.
"We have an aggressive but responsible bid," Boeing Chairman President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney said Thursday at the Cowen Aerospace/Defense Conference in New York. "I think the people in this room would be glad if we won at the bid level we put in and would be happy if we lost at a lower level."
In a statement, McNerney said: "This decision is critical to America's national security and its manufacturing base. Our best-of-Boeing team has offered the most capable and fuel-efficient tanker that will enable the U.S. Air Force to continue serving as the world's finest air refueling provider without breaking future defense budgets."
Boeing has put its proposed 767-based [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] up against EADS North America's Airbus A330-based [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] in the competition to replace Eisenhower-era Boeing KC-135 tankers.
In announcing that his company would also turn in its final proposal Thursday, EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby Jr. said: "Our fighting men and women deserve the most modern, capable and proven tanker in the world, and American workers deserve the jobs that the KC-45 will create here at home. We're proud to compete on the merits of our tanker offering and support the warfighter's right to choose the aircraft they will go to war in."
The NewGen Tankers "deliver superior capabilities to U.S. warfighters and burn 24 percent less fuel" than the KC-45, Boeing boasted Thursday. "If selected, the Boeing tanker will save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in fuel costs over the next 40 years and support 50,000 American jobs with more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states."
Boeing pointed to its long experience designing, building, modifying and supporting existing U.S. KC-135 and KC-10 tankers. It noted that it has delivered four KC-767J tankers to Japan's Air Self-Defense Force and the first of four KC-767s to the Italian Air Force.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Albaugh also invoked another recent program that modifies commercial airplanes for defense use, saying: "Our NewGen Tankers will be built using a proven low-risk, in-line manufacturing approach similar to the highly successful [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]-based Navy P-8A, by an already trained and highly experienced U.S. work force at existing Boeing facilities that have delivered more than 2,000 tankers and 1,000 commercial 767s."
Boeing said its tanker:

• Saves up to $36 billion in life-cycle costs over the KC-45;
  
• "Features a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command of the entire flight envelope rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability";
  
• "Provides Air Force pilots with an advanced digital flight deck featuring [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] electronic displays";
  
• "Includes proven air refueling technology and a modernized NewGen KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope capability, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system -- all from the company that invented the air refueling boom and has produced the world's most capable and reliable tankers";
  
• "Delivers significantly more fuel, cargo, passengers and patients than the current KC-135 tanker in a widebody airplane with a narrowbody footprint that affords the Air Force invaluable flexibility for a variety of operations."
  

EADS North America noted that it would assemble its tanker at a new facility in Mobile, Ala., using many hundreds of U.S. suppliers in more than 40 states.
"The KC-45 will be built in the United States by 48,000 American workers," the company said.
And the larger KC-45 would actually cost the Air Force less to operate, EADS asserted. "In true Air Force operational scenarios, Boeing's concept tanker will cost 15 percent to 44 percent more, measured on the basis of cost per gallon of fuel delivered."
The company said the A330 tankers it has in flight testing for the Royal Australian Air Force are much more similar to the KC-45 than Boeing's existing 767-based tankers are to NewGen.
"We're offering a real aircraft that has proven what it can do for our men and women in uniform, not asking the Air Force and U.S. taxpayers to take a huge gamble on an airplane that only exists on paper," Crosby said.
Finally, "all of the KC-45's refueling systems have been proven in flight, with more than a thousand aerial refueling contacts and over 1.5 million pounds of fuel transferred to a wide range of receiver aircraft," EADS said. "The concept aircraft and refueling systems that Boeing is offering to the Air Force have never been built, flown or tested."

L’offre d’EADS sur les ravitailleurs révisée


Le groupe européen d'aéronautique et de défense a revu sa copie dans l’appel d’offre pour renouveler la flotte d’avions ravitailleurs de l’armée de l’air américaine.

Il est revenu sur le contenu et le prix de sa réponse finale, selon le président du groupe en Amérique du Nord, Ralph Crosby.

L’objectif de cette démarche est de gagner face à son rival Boeing. Selon le patron du groupe en Amérique du Nord, l’offre d’[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] doit être moins chère d’environ 1% de celle de son rival américain pour l’emporter, sans donner davantage de précision sur la nouvelle proposition. Il n’exclut pas une protestation contre l’américain, en cas de défaite d’[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] dans l’attribution du contrat.

Les deux concurrents avaient déposé leur offre définitive jeudi dernier pour le méga contrat de 179 avions ravitailleurs, estimé à 35 milliards de dollars.

L’attribution du contrat tant attendue pourrait être décidée avant la fin du mois de février pour les plus optimistes et au maximum en mars.

EADS outlines bidding strategy for KC-X win

As the KC-X competition enters perhaps its final week, [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] North America has revealed a major shift in pricing strategy and outlined how its proposal may prevail over [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]'s bid.
After a seven-month evaluation phase, the US Air Force allowed both competitors to submit final changes on 11 February. A week before the deadline, EADS chief executive Tom Enders ruled out making any "hectic, last-minute" changes before the deadline, according to a Reuters story.
However, EADS officials in the US changed their minds over the next six days.
Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS NA, on 16 February explained how the undisclosed price cut became possible.
The air force's "refinement of our understanding and our refinement to them of our proposal built the case of, 'hey, we could in fact revise our price from the initial bid," Crosby says.
For example, the air force clarified a requirement for an onboard inert gas generation system [OBIGGS] listed in the request for proposal. That allowed EADS to reduce their cost estimate for providing the system, Crosby says. Another example is the initial requirement for a large aircraft infrared countermeasures [LAIRCM] system, which the air force decided to provide as government furnished equipment.
Price is the key factor in the air force's evaluation process for KC-X. To measure the price of both proposals, the air force multiplies each bid by a factor of 1.25, then adjusts the estimates based on an analysis of lifecycle fuel and infrastructure costs. A mission-based assessment, which rewards the aircraft that performs better in simulations, also adjusts the price.
Crosby concedes that Boeing's smaller KC-767 will likely beat the KC-45 on fuel burn and infrastructure costs. But he estimates the difference amounts to no greater than $1.5 billion over 30 years. Boeing, however, advertises that the KC-767 lifecycle operating costs will be $36 billion cheaper over the same period.
The KC-45's bigger size may be an advantage in the mission-based refuelling assessment, Crosby says. The same aircraft scored 6% higher than the KC-767 in the previous competition, which was awarded to the KC-45 before a protest over-turned the decision. Based on the models used in this competition, the KC-45 could beat its competitor by an even greater margin, Crosby says.
The most important factor, however, may be the price submitted by each bidder for development and production. As the larger aircraft, the KC-45 would seem to be the most expensive. Crosby, however, insists EADS has an opportunity to underbid Boeing.
In the last competition, the KC-45 was initially judged cheaper than Boeing's proposal. Since then, [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] has withdrawn as prime contractor for the EADS bid, lowering the KC-45's cost base. Crosby also notes that [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] is ramping up production of the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], although Boeing has announced similar plans for the 767.
"How those criteria and factors are added together," Crosby says, "[are why] we feel very good about the opportunity".

Top DOD buyer signals globalization is reality; tanker contract might come Feb. 25

Two top Defense Department officials today (Feb. 16) told a conference sponsored by Aviation Week magazine that the contract award for the KC-X could be made by the end of the month.
The buzz in Washington is that it will be after the stock market closed on Friday, Feb. 25.
The statements by the DOD officials are summed up nicely in [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]
At the same Aviation Week conference, the Pentagon’s top buyer, Ashton Carter, repeated remarks he made a week earlier at the Cowen & Co. aerospace and defense investors’ conference February 9. At the Cowen event, the headlines to come out of it were remarks made by Boeing CEO Jim McNerney about the prospect of proceeding with an all-new replacement for the 737.
The headline that did not come out of it was from a speech presented by the Pentagon’s top buyer, Ashton Carter. Elements of his speech did, indeed, make news. However, buried in his speech as the last topic were his comments about globalization and procuring key defense systems from non-US companies.
Is this laying the groundwork for selecting the EADS North America KC-45 tanker in the KC-X competition? DOD Buzz picked up on this, too, [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]
Perhaps this is too much “Kremlinology” but carefully read his remarks:

In the industry that supports these international security efforts, we likewise simply cannot avoid or wall ourselves off from globalization. Depending on the program, from a few percent to much more of the value-added in defense goods and services is sourced overseas – mostly to companies that serve as subcontractors to U.S. primes and that provide, for example, a particular specialized part. Sometimes that is where the best technology or best value can be found, and when it is, we owe it to the warfighter to do so. Globalization of our market is not an option – it is a reality. Our utilization of, for lack of a better term, “non-heritage” firms is essential for nearly all of the systems upon which we rely. We are committed to continue opening our markets while at the same time striking the appropriate balance with security concerns. Just as we have opened our markets to the leading firms from around the world, we urge our partner nations to do likewise. Exports obviously strengthen our industry’s competitiveness, but they also enhance our security – and international security – when they build the capacities of international partners. We are doing our part by implementing President Obama’s reforms of our antiquated export control regulations and procedures, and we expect our efforts will result in increasingly open and fair competitions around the globe.
To summarize, our goals in the new era for our defense industry are:

• A strong, vibrant, and financially successful defense industry,
  
• Structural change largely through market forces but adjusted where the interests of the taxpayer and warfighter require,
  
• Preserving and enhancing competition,
  
• Equal attention to the health of smaller and mid-sized companies, spinouts, new entrants, and service providers,
  
• Encouraging open entry into the defense marketplace, and
  
• Full advantage taken of the opportunities of globalization
  

Here is [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], from the Cowen conference. The Aviation Week remarks were essentially identical.