Simviation Forum - Boeings Next Gen Tanker(The Winner)

Reply #30 - Jan 20^th, 2011 at 12:51pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

DaveSims wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

Mayor Daley's brother... Roll Eyes

... but can't say much more due to forum rules on politics.

Quite!

Even as a Brit, I know that's not the best thing!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Jan 21^st, 2011 at 12:47pm

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

Quote:

Cantwell: Air Force must answer questions about tanker flub

The Air Force's word that its inadvertent disclosure of information about Boeing and EADS North America's aerial refueling tanker bids to the competing companies didn't give anyone an unfair advantage isn't good enough, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Thursday.

"We're actually here today to put the Air Force on notice that we want questions answered as to the process that has been followed in allowing the information from both sides of these bids to be revealed," Cantwell said after touring the Everett assembly line for Boeing's 767, which is the basis for the company's proposed NewGen Tanker.

"Vital information about Boeing's bid was revealed to their competitor in the bidding process," she said.

And we know now from information from the Air Force that Boeing did not look at the disc information given to them, but Airbus did. I want an investigation of what Airbus did with that information, and did that allow them to make an adjustment for the best and final offer? Did it give them an unfair advantage in the bidding process? If so, the Air Force should stop this process and make sure that there is a fair and balanced process for awarding the tanker (contract).

The Air Force is expected to award the $35 billion tanker contract in March to Boeing's NewGen tanker or EADS North America's KC-45 tanker. Representatives from EADS North America and the Air Force declined to respond to Cantwell's comments Thursday.

Cantwell said she sent a letter Thursday to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., outlining her questions in advance of a hearing next week on the disclosure. Cantwell said she has questions about what steps the Air Force took to ensure EADS did not gain an unfair competitive advantage from the Boeing data, what the Air Force's forensic analysis of the discs sent to both companies showed, whether each company's actions followed Air Force ethics rules, standards and practices, whether the released compromised the part of the bidding process that includes price adjustments and, if so, what that means for the competition.

What if she doesn't get her questions answered?

"And the last time we asked tough questions about this process, the GAO was involved and said you have to answer these questions," Cantwell said, referring to the U.S. Government Accountability Office's finding of serious flaws in the Air Force's previous attempt to award the tanker contract. The Air Force chose the tanker proposed by a previous team of Northrop Grumman and EADS, but the GAO report led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to throw out that award and restart the competition.

Congress members have previously threatened to cut off tanker funding if the Air Force did not address their concerns that the EADS tanker could benefit from illegal European subsidies. Asked whether that's an option she'd consider if her data disclosure questions weren't answered, Cantwell said: "I certainly would be looking for every opportunity to make sure that this was a fair process. And if that included legislative remedies, we'd be looking for them."

Cantwell said she's also concerned about subsidies, which Air Force and Pentagon officials have repeatedly refused to consider.

The next move on that "will be probably a discussion on the floor of the Senate," Cantwell said. "You've basically allowed for subsidies to play a vital role in allowing somebody to have a cheaper bid, and I think that's wrong."

Cantwell said she did not think the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives would impact the tanker process. Boeing has powerful Democratic supporters, including Washington's Norm Dicks, who lost the chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with the changeover.

But many Republicans also care about issues of American manufacturing and fairness, Cantwell said, "and you'll see that in the next coming weeks."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/236435.asp

And since it is a Washington State article, the comments that go with it are pretty funny, some of them:

Quote:

Ha, a better question to post to the USAF would be why they want to buy a tanker from Airbus[t] that drops it's refueling system into the ocean and damages planes in the process. Sounds like a crappy aircraft to me. Rather than keeping our planes in action through refueling, it would be helping the enemy by taking them out instead. Way to go Airbutts

Just what we need more interference from a novice aeronautical politician intent on preserving personal stature over quality equipment.

Lets face it anyone wondering around a Boeing production facility on a PR mission is hardly going to extol the antique nature of the 767 product, rebuked by the civil aviation sector this aircraft represents everthing Boeing wants and nothing the USAF requires, it is well and truly dead in the face of a superior European product.

It exists but only in Powerpoint.

If Boeing say they didn't look at the disc they received, we have to believe them. They are proud Americans. They never lie and never cheat.

I am amazed at the anti-Boeing European loving people who think it is to America's benfit to reduce our national manufacturing capability. As a retired KC-10/KC-135 Aerial Refueling Operator (Boom Operator), my question is how did EADS get the U.S. propriety information to make the EADS boom.....this is where the investigation should be.... who gave them the know how, besides reverse engineering the French 135 boom and the ex-USAF boom operators who work for EADS should be thinking of possible legal charges.....

The french planes have rear-view cameras to monitor the enemy.

nope they have sensors that when enemy radar is detected the plane begins trailing white "we surrender" smoke

If Boeing say they didn't look at the disc they received, we have to believe them. They are proud Americans. They never lie and never cheat.

you're an idiot, comes from parents who were idiots, please do not procreate. forensic analysis has determined that boeing DID NOT open any files, however forensic evidence did reveal that eads did open and examine files

#655738 - You think no ancient Boeing tanker has ever broken a boom? Oh wait, didn't one of the Japanese tankers break one just after (it's much delayed) delivery?

Epic FAIL.

Just a few.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 5:10am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Brilliant! I like the comments suggesting that no one outside the USA could be intelligent enough to design something without copying an American! Grin

Mind you, I suspect some of these people would lack the brain power to be able to comprehend the fact the Airbus isn't just a French company. In fact, if you told them the wings were made in the volatile region of the United Kingdom known as Wales, they'd never get on an Airbus again... Grin

Quote:

The french planes have rear-view cameras to monitor the enemy.

Lol, well I've never heard them being called the "enemy", but some fast jet pilots can make you nervous when they're behind a hose.

As an aside, do the drogue/MPRS equipped KC-135s have a camera?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:25am

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

C wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 5:10am:

As an aside, do the drogue/MPRS equipped KC-135s have a camera?

No US Tanker has them, the A330MRTT would have been the first, up until Boeing Said the "Next Gen Tanker" would offer it too like the A330.

And I told my Boss, who worked the KC-135A/B/C/E, about the comments on the boom, and he laughed! He said they have been ripping booms off the KC-135 since Vietnam, nothing has changed. If it is gonna brake, it will brake there is nothing you can do about it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 1:02pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

OVERLORD_CHRIS wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:25am:

No US Tanker has them, the A330MRTT would have been the first, up until Boeing Said the "Next Gen Tanker" would offer it too like the A330.

I did wonder, seeing of course they all have a boom op. I've been down the back of a 135 once to the operators "bed" type thing, but didn't think to see what view, if any, the crew have of the hoses.

For us, the camera is a must.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 2:18pm

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

Yeah the KC-135 you lay flat and guide the plane in with the lights, then fly the boom in. Unless it has the basket on the boom for Navy/Coalition Fighters, then it is just a modified procedure.

The KC-10, was the first with the fly-by-wire boom, that MD came up with, and uses a regular seat for the boomer, but has the basket stode next to the boom in the fuselage on all KC-10's, but can be fitted with the extra 2 prior to take off.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 5:31pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

I suppose a fair number of the USAF hoses are still just BDA as opposed to pods, and hence not having means of seeing the wing hoses.

Personally, it's a good thing to be able to see that the bloke/lady in their aeroplane, who's about to deliberately fly it into your aeroplane, is fairly competent - although sometimes you wish you weren't able to watch. Certainly it's a very valid safety feature.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #37 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 5:04am

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

C wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 5:31pm:

I suppose a fair number of the USAF hoses are still just BDA as opposed to pods, and hence not having means of seeing the wing hoses.

Personally, it's a good thing to be able to see that the bloke/lady in their aeroplane, who's about to deliberately fly it into your aeroplane, is fairly competent - although sometimes you wish you weren't able to watch. Certainly it's a very valid safety feature.

They extend the baskets out all the way past the tail, then the boomer just watches them come in, and I believe he is on the radio too to talk if need be.

Quote:

Caldwell: Battle over Air Force tanker nearing conclusion

Bert Caldwell The Spokesman-Review

The U.S. Air Force may make its final final decision on the next generation of tanker as soon as next month.

But Congress may have the final final final word.

Defense work seldom gets awarded purely on its merits. Too much money is on the table, and too many jobs, which partly explains why this is the third go-round for a contract that could be worth $35 billion, and as many as 50,000 jobs to the winner and its suppliers.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has taken a hard line on superfluous defense projects, but no one argues that tankers President Dwight Eisenhower would recognize do not need replacing.

So Boeing Co. and the European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., EADS, have all their chips in. And because the two companies were inadvertently – or not – sent information on each other’s proposal, they know the hand the other is holding.

It does not look good for Boeing.

Air Force criteria apparently favor the larger EADS KC-45 over Boeing’s KC-767. A bigger plane can carry more fuel, supplies or personnel. But it will also require construction of new aprons and hangars, significantly increasing indirect costs.

This week, the Senate Armed Forces Committee will hold a hearing on the information swap, which Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., alleges compromised fair-competition regulations. She says the Air Force has glossed over the problem.

“Congress may not be as indifferent as the Air Force when so many taxpayer dollars and domestic jobs are at stake,” she wrote Sen. Carl Levin, the committee chairman, last week.

That sentence touches on the real nub: EADS will manufacture its tanker air frame, based on the Airbus A-330, in Europe. The plane will be modified for tanker use at a proposed plant in Mobile, Ala.

The KC-767 will roll off the line in Everett, where dwindling demand for the commercial version could mean thousands of layoffs.

And with EADS anxious to crack the U.S. defense market, suspicions are the company will lowball its bid. Boeing officials say they will not bid the company into a loss on the contract.

Boeing supporters claim EADS/Airbus has a cost advantage solely because European governments have contributed an estimated $20 billion to Airbus aircraft development efforts over the years. Boeing has received about $3 billion in assistance, some of that from Washington state.

Those figures are taken from World Trade Organization findings that, coincidentally, will be finalizing next month. Boeing partisans have argued mightily that the assistance given Airbus, and its foreign birth, should figure in Air Force decision-making.

Cantwell, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and former Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., tried unsuccessfully to get an amendment with that requirement attached to the defense appropriations act. But the House of Representatives in December overwhelmingly supported a similar measure.

The brass knuckles will come out when the Air Force makes its choice.

Much as a win for Boeing would be a win for Washington, a choice of the EADS plane would be a boost for Spokane. Fairchild Air Force Base was among 10 the Air Force used to assess the capabilities of both airplanes. If the KC-45 is selected, the base will need major upgrades to accommodate the bigger birds.

Boeing did get one bit of good news last week. The boom on an EADS tanker broke and fell into the Atlantic Ocean during a refueling mission. Oops.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/23/battle-over-air-force-tanker-nearin...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #38 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 9:02am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

OVERLORD_CHRIS wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 5:04am:

They extend the baskets out all the way past the tail, then the boomer just watches them come in, and I believe he is on the radio too to talk if need be.

The hoses aren't that long. That's the scary part!

I've just had a look at a pic of a 135 with MPRS, and you're right, I suspect the boomer can see them from his position. I suspect on the '330 he might struggle with the extra fuselage length!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #39 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 12:04pm

Flying Trucker Offline
Colonel
An Old Retired Rocking
Chair Flying Geezer

Gender:
Posts: 11425

Good afternoon all...

Must not forget these aircraft which were or are in United States Military service:

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-2....Beaver....American Military U6A & U6B...won United States battle honours...not sure how many aircraft can claim that...

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-3...Otter....American Military UC-1 & U-1B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-4...Caribou...American Military CV-2 & C-7
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-6...Twin Otter...American Military UV-18A & UV-18B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-7....Dash 7...American Military EO-5C
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-8....Dash 8...American Military E9A

Just to name a few... Wink

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #40 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 3:43pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

Flying Trucker wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Good afternoon all...

Must not forget these aircraft which were or are in United States Military service:

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-2....Beaver....American Military U6A & U6B...won United States battle honours...not sure how many aircraft can claim that...

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-3...Otter....American Military UC-1 & U-1B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-4...Caribou...American Military CV-2 & C-7
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-6...Twin Otter...American Military UV-18A & UV-18B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-7....Dash 7...American Military EO-5C
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-8....Dash 8...American Military E9A

Just to name a few... Wink

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

Even on that note:

Fokker D.VII
Fokker D.VIII
Fokker C-27 (F27)
Short C-23
AV-8 Harrier

Actually if you research, you will find quite a few Fokker's pre WW2 in the US inventory. And I know the Harrier is technically a McDonnell Douglas, but who developed, and I'm sure profited from the aircraft, British Aerospace.

I have mixed emotions about US military hardware being built out of country. However there are two things I do know, no Boeing is not 100% American made, many parts come from overseas, and I want our troops to have the most capable equipment available, which sure looks like an Airbus to me. And I do not like Airbus on most fronts.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #41 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 6:38pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Not to mention the backbone of the USAAF photo recce fleet in Europe in WW2, the Spitfire and Mosquito.

Hurricanes even flew in USAAF markings for the invasion of north Africa during operation torch, albeit they were RAF machines, as it was thought that the "spams/yanks" may not have been familiar with their markings as it was their first venture east (on a national scale, as of course plenty had fought before for the allies before Pearl Harbor)!

So yellow rimmed blue/white stars it was.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #42 - Jan 26^th, 2011 at 7:30pm

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

Yeah but the thing is most people don"t remember those, and Congress Sure as hell don't remember those.

But the best example to use that the US Congress members would remember is the British Designed AV-8 Harrier. USMC would never have been able to carry out their missions through out the last 20-30 years with out it. Aside from the UK, the USMC had the other largest fleet of Jump Jets, granted they were built under McDonald Douglass/Boeing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #43 - Jan 27^th, 2011 at 5:34am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

OVERLORD_CHRIS wrote on Jan 26^th, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Yeah but the thing is most people don"t remember those, and Congress Sure as hell don't remember those.

I'm sure some of them struggle to remember past last week! Wink

Quote:

But the best example to use that the US Congress members would remember is the British Designed AV-8 Harrier. USMC would never have been able to carry out their missions through out the last 20-30 years with out it. Aside from the UK, the USMC had the other largest fleet of Jump Jets, granted they were built under McDonald Douglass/Boeing.

Much as the original Harrier/AV-8A was very much a British design, the AV-8B was very much driven by the USA, and I suspect was at least a 50:50 development, if not more on the US side.

We were just lucky enough to have some clever chaps at the end of the 50s who between them produced both a workable VTOL engine, and an airframe it could go into. On of them in his earlier career designed the Hurricane, and another, again 20 years earlier, was rather responsible for turning the RR Merlin into one of the best piston engines ever made.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #44 - Jan 28^th, 2011 at 11:52am

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

Quote:

EADS had Boeing tanker data file open for three minute

An EADS North America employee had a file showing Boeing aerial refueling tanker information open for about three minutes, while Boeing never opened a file with EADS data, a Pentagon expert testified Thursday.

The Air Force accidentally sent of information about the Boeing and EADS bids to the other bidders in November. After learning that EADS opened a file and saw one screen of information, the Air Force re-sent that information to both companies in an effort to level the playing field.

The Senate Armed Services committee held a hearing on the incident Thursday. After the hearing, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., announced that she and six other senators, had called for a Pentagon inspector general investigation.

"EADS now has an unfair competitive advantage to adjust its bid to undercut Boeing," Cantwell contended in a news release.

Responding to that call, EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby, Jr., said: "We would welcome an investigation by the DoD Inspector General -- if such an investigation does not delay the decision on acquisition of new tankers.

"Scandal and protest have kept this badly needed system out of the hands of our service men and women long enough. We are interested in illuminating unambiguous facts, not in a tactic for delaying the decision process."

All the best,

Steven Shirley, executive director of the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center, which investigated the incident, said a forensic analysis showed only one page was shown, for about three minutes, and found no evidence refuting EADS' sworn statement that the employee only actually viewed the screen for about 15 seconds.

In written testimony to the committee, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer Sean O'Keefe contradicted Shirley's account somewhat, writing: "The total time that the file was open was less than 15 seconds."

O'Keefe said the person who saw the data was "assigned to administrative duties separate from the KC-45 (tanker) program" until after the end of EADS and Air Force investigations.

"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," O'Keefe wrote.

"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," he added. "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."

Cantwell mentioned the one-month figure earlier this month.

In his testimony, Boeing Defense, Space and Security President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg gently dug into EADS, writing:

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.

EADS did ask for, and get, an extension of the original tanker bid deadline so it could prepare its own bid after former tanker partner Northrop Grumman pulled out of the competition. Here is the full testimony from O'Keefe and Muilenburg.

The EADS employee saw summary information about the Air Force's interim Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment of the Boeing NewGen Tanker, Maj. Gen. Wendy M. Masiello, Air Force program executive officer for combat and mission support, said Thursday. The assessment, known by its acronym, IFARA, looks at the plane's ability to meet requirements in several war-fighting scenarios.

So what difference would this information make? IFARA is the basis for one of two adjustments that the Air Force will make to bid prices before choosing a winner. (The other is for life-cycle costs.)

So having this information about the competitor could help a company adjust its bid to end up with a better final price.

The Air Force argues it made up for any such advantage by ensuring that both companies had the same information. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., noted that the information could potentially help one company more than the other.

"The attempt to level the playing field is clear," he said. "Whether it succeeds or not is a different issue."

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the committee's senior Republican, started out by saying the hearing and an associated release of documents about the foul up, should have waited until after the Air Force's selection of a winner -- expected in the next month or two.

The extent to which the incident might have impacted the contest "seems to be to be an issue more appropriately addressed after the competition has run its course and a winner has been announced," he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., also questioned the motivation behind the hearing.

"On the eve of this final decision, we've got people with political interests and local interests trying to destabilize the process," he said.

Sessions also noted that either company could protest at any time, but neither has so far. EADS would assemble its tanker in Mobile, Ala.

An eventual Boeing protest may be what Thursday's hearing was about, according to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

"There are some people in this town who believe that the company that they favor may be about to lose a bid again, as they did in 2008, and a foundation is being laid for howls of protest," he said, referring to the Air Force's previous awarding of the tanker contract to a Northrop Grumman-EADS team. Defense Secretary Robert Gates threw out that result and launched a new competition after congressional auditors found serious flaws in the process.

But fellow Republican Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, disagreed, saying: "I think this is something we should be looking at. It's something we should be talking about."

Boeing is building its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in North Charleston, S.C. Notably, Republican committee member Mark Kirk, from Boeing's headquarters state of Illinois, didn't take part in the hearing.

Graham and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also brought up the Air Force's refusal to account in the competition for illegal subsidies that a World Trade Organization panel found EADS subsidiary Airbus to have received, including for the A330 aircraft, which is the basis for EADS North America's KC-45 tanker.

"What if this company was owned by China," she asked. "Would we take that into consideration?"

Invoking criticisms of Democrats from the right, McCaskill said: "I've heard a lot of lectures over the past year about (socialism). ... I don't think the Department of Defense should treat companies equally if one is subsidized by a foreign government."

Wicker noted that a separate panel found that Boeing also received illegal subsidies.

After the hearing, Sens. Cantwell, Graham, Patty Murray, D-Wash, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., signed onto a letter calling on Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell to investigate the impact of the incident on the fairness and lawfulness of the competition.

"At a minimum, we know that the IFARA score was compromised," they wrote. "That is why it is critical that your investigation determine whether the data breach compromises the IFARA adjustment to price, and more broadly, whether the data breach creates an unfair competitive advantage for the bidder that looked at the other bidder's proprietary data."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/237182.asp

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: