Appel d'offre des ravitailleurs de l'USAF
| Auteur | Message | |
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 21 juillet 2008 15:44 | |
|
Nouvelles de Getafe .. ----------------- Extrait---------------------- http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 1c218& RAAF A330-Based Tanker Prepares For Final Testing Wed, 16 Jul '08 KC-30 MRTT Due For Delivery Next Year The Royal Australian Air Force’s first KC-30B Multi-role Tanker/Transport is being readied for its final phase of ground and flight testing, which will clear the way for a 2009 delivery. The KC-30B successfully completed Phase I flight testing in just three months earlier this year. During Phase I, the MRTT flight envelope was explored and expanded, aerodynamic and performance data gathered, and aircraft handling qualities validated with the full-up aerial refueling boom and wing pod systems installed. The KC-30B achieved all Phase I objectives, including demonstration that the modified aircraft is free from buffet and flutter throughout the flight envelope. The Phase 1 testing obtained all test data required to support civil certification by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS |
||
 
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 juillet 2008 11:38 | |
|
Bonjour! La guerre des agences aux USA ... pas mauvais pour la clarité des process ... on voudrait bien voir la même chose en France, et en Italie ... Le GAO se paye les Audits de la défense,, côté Aérospace ... !! Bonne ambiance garantie pour la suite côté Tankers ... -------------- Extraits ---------------- Contractors improperly influenced Defense audits, GAO finds By Robert Brodsky [email protected] July 23, 2008 Managers at a key Defense Department oversight agency threatened a senior auditor with personnel action if he did not remove negative findings from a report criticizing a large federal contractor, according to a new report published Wednesday by a government watchdog. The scathing report by the Government Accountability Office found a too-cozy relationship between management at the Defense Contract Audit Agency and some of the contractors they are assigned to audit. GAO also said auditors who complied with the investigation were subject to harassment and intimidation from their supervisors. GAO "found that contractor officials and the DoD contracting community improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions and opinions of some audits -- a serious independence issue." In response to the report DCAA acknowledged that there were shortcomings with some internal controls, but it did not agree with the totality of the report. "DCAA has taken prompt and immediate action to correct the issues and is committed to promptly addressing any remaining significant issues identified by the GAO," wrote Kenneth Saccoccia, DCAA assistant director of policy and plans directorate. "We believe that the three field audit offices at issue are currently operating at a satisfactory level." The report found that DCAA officials in 2002 made an upfront agreement with a major aerospace company to limit the scope of its work and the basis for its audit opinion. But even with the agreement, auditors found that the contractor -- who was not named in the report and identified only as "one of the top five government contractors based on contract dollar value" -- still could not produce valid compliance estimates. The auditor eventually issued a draft finding of inadequate. The contractor, however, objected to the findings, prompting DCAA management to assign a new supervisory auditor to the case, according to the report. Faced with the threat of personnel action if he did not change the draft report, the auditor reportedly changed the findings to adequate. _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 juillet 2008 15:24 | |
|
Ca va vite côté essais de la nouvelle perche pour l'USAF ! NG-EADS accélèrent les essais !! Contre un assemblage de morceaux de 767, pas encore testé ni pesé !! Leur perche Nouvelle, non plus d'ailleurs !! Visiblement, NG-EADS, veut avoir terminé le max de test, avant de se re-présenter !! Un plus évident !! --------------- Extrait ------------------ http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?cont ... 296559e1#d One Step Closer To Production For KC-X Competitor The advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) destined for the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 Tanker has performed multiple aerial contacts with an operational Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, confirming its ability to support large aircraft in US, NATO, and allied air forces. Northrop tells ANN the test mission fulfilled several key flight and program milestones for the KC-45's all-electric, fly-by-wire Aerial Refueling Boom System, including sustaining one of the tanker-to-receiver aircraft contacts to simulate large offloads. The continued successful testing of the ARBS is further indication of the boom system's maturity and readiness for the US Air Force's next generation KC-45 Tanker. "The accomplishment of yet another key ARBS test program milestone is proof of the maturity of our aerial refueling capability and of the KC-45's readiness to fulfill our promise to the US Air Force and the joint warfighter," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of air mobility systems. "The Air Force has clearly stated they need this capability as soon as possible to replace the aging KC-135 fleet, and we offer the lowest risk, most capable solution now." The July 18 test used the exact ARBS configuration proposed for the KC-45, and was controlled by a former US Air Force boom operator. The KC-45's all-electric ARBS provides highly accurate, reliable in-flight refueling, with a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 US gallons per minute. Because this boom has the largest envelope of any available in the industry, both the AWACS crew and the boom operator were impressed with the relative ease and efficiency of the refueling operation -- which replicated conditions of operational mission scenarios with the KC-45 boom and the large receiver aircraft. This follows previous in-flight evaluations that confirmed the ARBS' excellent handling qualities with large receiver platforms along with smaller and faster combat aircraft that has included the F-16, F-1, F/A-18 and C101 in previous testing. (Message édité par Beochien le 24/07/2008 16h38) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
xmadflyer
Inscrit le 02/03/2008 |
# 24 juillet 2008 23:51 | |
|
Northrop accuse les soutiens de Boeing d'hypocrisie sur une ancienne affaire de fourniture d'ailes nouvelles sur les A10. De Flight, M. Stephen Trimble " Northrop Grumman has accused Boeing's supporters of "rank hypocrisy" after its opponent in the US Air Force's renewed KC-X tanker competition again acknowledged sending work on a US defence contract to South Korea." "So, while Boeing cheerleads supporters who allege that Northrop Grumman should not be awarded the tanker contract because it will ship jobs overseas, Boeing is engaging in precisely that same practice," says a Northrop statement released in response to a report by flightglobal.com's " " Boeing has subcontracted Korea Aerospace Industries to build the outer wing panels for the USAF's Fairchild A-10 wing replacement programme. Boeing won the $2 billion contract last year after defeating a rival bid by a Lockheed Martin/Northrop team. By contrast, Northrop had proposed to base all manufacturing for the new A-10 wing in St Augustine, Florida. " ---------------------------------------------------------------- " Boeing executives continue to believe the KC-767 is the best platform for the USAF's needs, but will make a final decision after the draft version of a revised request for proposals is released. " Bon Alors : 767 ou 777 ?   http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -work.html Si ce n'est pas du foutage de g...Et qu'on ne vienne pas me dire pro ou...CL, flute !! (Message édité par xmadflyer le 25/07/2008 00h12) |
||
|
|
||
|
alain57
Inscrit le 08/03/2008 |
# 25 juillet 2008 09:37 | |
|
faite ce que je dit, pas ce que je fait....... boeing et vraiment devenus un exemple a ne pas suivre... |
||
|
|
||
|
poncho
Inscrit le 10/04/2008 |
# 25 juillet 2008 09:57 | |
787 avec aile -3 et MTOW du -8, seconde ligne d'assemblage....  Surtout si le paramètre carbu est important... Pb : moteurs > GE déjà engagé avec NG... et exclu normalement Boeing PW comme Sevrien l'a rappelé Gros bluff... Pour NG, si j'ai bien compris, 3 démonstrateur KC30 ont été commandés... et ça n'a pas été remis en cause. Et vraisemblablement ils seront opérationnels pour la fin de la seconde RFP (en tout cas ça pourrait être possible) J'en déduis : 1) l'USAF va disposer d'avions NG pour se forger une opinion qu'il ne devra pas prendre en compte parce que les critères de sélections du nouvel RFP n'en feront pas mention par soucis d'équité... 2) NG ne peut que modifier à la marge son offre vu que les démonstrateurs existent 3) Certaines caractéristiques détaillées des KC30 vont être publiques (comprendre qu'elles seront connues de l'USAF et quelle peuvent donc être également connues de Boeing par différents biais) 4) Ca va être long... bigre ! (Message édité par poncho le 25/07/2008 10h07) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 25 juillet 2008 22:41 | |
|
Les protos ne seront pas prêts, fin 2008, avec tout l'équipement militaire US, ! Un KC 45 proto, , volant, et prêt avec la perche définitive, sans la militairisation US .. possible !! Factible, oui ... mais c'est à voir !! Ca dépend des jeux Mktg et intox en cours ! Sûr que Foeing, avec son Frankeintanker, va avoir plus de mal !! _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
freddu56
Inscrit le 19/01/2008 |
# 28 juillet 2008 11:18 | |
|
et bah on va pas se plaindre !!! _________________ vive l' armée française |
||
|
|
||
|
xmadflyer
Inscrit le 02/03/2008 |
# 2 août 2008 00:57 | |
|
La suite du feuilleton rapporté par le blog de James Wallace : With the Pentagon perhaps just a week or so away from sending out a request for proposals on the Air Force tanker, the ongoing war of words between Boeing and Northrop backers has turned more ugly. The Boeing camp is upset at a hard-hitting radio ad from a group that calls itself "Alabamians to Build American Tankers.'' Politico's "The Crypt" blog has the audio of the advertisements played Thursday in Washington, D.C. Here is a sample: "The reason we are still trying to replace our aging refueling tankers is because Boeing executives were involved in a scandal of bribery and cheating in the last bid," according to an unofficial transcript of one of the ads. "Our Air Force is working hard to protect our country but it appears that Boeing's corporate policy is 'if Boeing can't win no one can'...and that means our troops lose." According to Politico, the 60-second ads were scheduled to run more than 19 times a day. But the group's president, Bryan Lee, told Politico the ads were pulled when he realized that Congress wouldn't be in session next week. Lee was quoted as saying the ads may resume when Congress returns. One of Boeing's congressional backers from Washington state, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, had this to say about the radio ad campaign in a news release: "This unfair attack against Boeing, and specifically Washington State, is malicious and should be taken off the air. I was at Boeing the day the announcement was made in February that Airbus had initially won and saw the disappointment on the faces of the hardworking employees. I truly got the sense of what a family Boeing is and how painful this process had become to them. Inserting political statements and attack ads into this process is not only disrespectful, but a deceitful attempt to tamper with a government process that has already been troubling in the past. We already have enough divisive attack ads in our country; we don't need to see them surrounding this issue – particularly false and misleading ads like these. "As the Government Accountability Office concluded on June 18, 2008, the Air Force made multiple errors in the initial selection. These attack ads are a direct assault on the 20,000-plus Boeing employees living in my district who only want a fair shot. These employees are some of the finest workers our country has ever produced, with a long tradition of excellence and innovation. We should all join together in being proud of how their products represent the best of America, not attack them because they are from another state! We are all Americans, after all. "I believe that the group responsible for this ad should apologize to every Boeing worker and I urge my colleagues in the Washington State, Kansas and Alabama delegations to join me in calling for these ads to be taken down so that the bidding process can carry on in a fair, responsible and respectful manner. These ads are beneath the dignity of the country these tankers will ultimately serve." Meanwhile, Northrop continues to send out mass e-mailings to media defending its tanker while criticizing Boeing. This was the latest from the Northrop tanker war room Thursday: Setting the Record Straight on Northrop Grumman's Tanker The online opinion page of the Los Angeles Times carries a somewhat condescending and factually-challenged rebuttal of a recent tanker-related op-ed submitted by retired Air Force General Charles Horner. The rebuttal, written by a member of Boeing's Public Relations staff, fulfills the prediction General Horner made in his piece that "the period leading up to a new tanker decision will be filled with misinformation. And, if recent history is an indicator, the folks on Boeing's side of the aisle will generate most of that misinformation." Clearly General Horner is a prescient man. The follies begin in paragraph two of the Boeing submission, where we find the statement "as the GAO found, the KC-767 was the only awardable solution," with the suggestion that the GAO found the Boeing plane superior. No matter how many times Boeing supporters read the GAO report they keep on missing the unambiguous statement it contains that its decision to sustain the tanker protest in no way reflects an opinion as to the merits of the two aircraft. In other words the GAO did not pick a winner. In fact, the Air Force finding that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 was superior in the areas that mattered most - warfighting capability and flexibility - was not undermined by the GAO's decision to uphold 8 of the 110 protest points raised by Boeing. To that end, the Boeing piece introduced a new number - Boeing says the protest was really only about 15 things. If so, the company should demand a refund from its lawyers because the avalanche of paper submitted to the GAO by its legal team (all of which is now public in redacted form) contains complaints about far more than 15 items.  The Boeing PR guy then criticizes Northrop Grumman for "defiantly" saying it will once again offer a tanker based on the A330 airframe despite the fact that a revised Request for Proposals has yet to be issued by the Department of Defense. It is unclear what is "defiant" about a decision to offer an aircraft that has already been deemed superior to the Boeing offering, unless Boeing is once again attempting to persuade the government that it should change its specs to ensure selection of the less capable 767. The piece also contains a reference to what noted aviation industry analyst Scott Hamilton once described as Boeing's "specious" claims about fuel efficiency. While Boeing is right that a single KC-767 flying from point A to point B will burn less fuel than a single KC-45 on the same trip, that calculus ignores the fact that the planes won't be doing that - instead they'll be flying refueling and transport missions. As Hamilton wrote in a report he issued the other day, this analysis "really falls short." The question you have to ask when calculating fuel efficiency for a tanker fleet is which tanker delivers the most fuel while burning the least. That's how the Air Force calculated fuel efficiency and it correctly concluded that the KC-45, with its significantly greater fuel and cargo carrying capacity, is 6 percent more fuel efficient overall than the Boeing plane. Boeing never liked that finding so the company made up its own misleading math. ---------------------- Perhaps the fact that the Japanese tanker is a completely different design that wouldn't meet Air Force requirements combined with the fact that it was sent to Japan over a year late and is still not operationally certified to fly proved to be a bit of an embarrassment. And, of course Boeing also doesn't make reference to its Italian tanker which the company promised to deliver nearly four years ago but hasn't been capable of doing so yet. While Boeing is still designing its plane on paper, the first two tanker aircraft to be offered by Northrop Grumman have been built, tested and flown and the KC-45 refueling boom has undergone in excess of 100 flight tests. The Air Force needs a new tanker now and only Northrop Grumman is ready now to deliver it. The headline on General Horner's op-ed was "Boeing's Tanker Tantrum." The Boeing rebuttal does nothing to dispel the accuracy of that depiction of the company's behavior. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... ery=Boeing (Message édité par xmadflyer le 02/08/2008 01h11) |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 2 août 2008 06:48 | |
|
Merci, XmadflYER, pour le post qui précède. Voici un article (+ extraits + mes commentairees) très significatif du FT, qui, sauf erreur de ma part, n'a pas encore son équivalent dans la presse française ou francophone. Dommage. Lien : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37698274-5e08 ... 07658.html Congress move may force Pentagon tanker rethink By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Kevin Done in London Published: July 30 2008 08:39 | Last updated: July 31 2008 01:09 The Pentagon may have to consider the impact on the US industrial base of awarding a refuelling tanker contract to EADS, the European aerospace and defence company, if a measure passed on Wednesday by a congressional committee becomes law. Attention ! L'article du FT est une analyse bien plus subtile (& adaptée & pertinente) que celle réfléchie dans les propos du porte-parole de NG-EADS ! ------------------- The House appropriations defence committee bill could benefit USs Boeing over EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, in a new competition to provide the Pentagon with 179 in-flight refuelling tankers. Il est à espérer que la "sagesse conventionnelle" soit jetée vite à la poubelle, et les analyses plus fines mises en place, en vue d'un argumentaire approprié à inclure dans le dossier, dans une 2ème soumission ! Il faudrea que le dossier NG-EADS couvre ces aspects de : "Impacts on Industrial Base" / 'Impacts sur la base industrielle' aux USA ! ------------------ Randy Belote, spokesman for Northrop, said the company believed the provision ”does not introduce a new definition of ’industrial base’ or a change in law”, which he said meant that Northrop and EADS’s KC-45 tanker was ”fully compliant with all current industrial base requirements”. Il faudra que RB ouvre ses yeux, et change de façon de pensee ! EADS, ausssi ! ------------ ............ Last month, the Pentagon agreed to reopen the competition after the Government Accountability Office, the oversight ("supervisory & consulatative", en vrai anglais), arm of Congress, agreed with Boeing that there had been flaws in the selection process. Before the GAO decision, Robert Gates, US defence secretary, had reminded congressional critics that US law barred the Pentagon from considering industrial base issues in awarding military contracts. But the latest congressional move – which needs full committee approval – could force the Pentagon to consider how another EADS victory would impact on the US defence industrial base. A lire & à comprendre & à bien digérer........... ! Impératif que NG-EADS fasse le nécessaire dans son dossier, pour se blinder contre cette nouvelle tentaive de législation protectionniste ! ............ (Message édité par sevrien le 02/08/2008 07h01) (Message édité par sevrien le 12/08/2008 09h50) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 2 août 2008 13:22 | |
|
Bonjour Celle là en plus du congrés, 100 % dans l'axe Boeing, du sur mesure !! du Seattle Times Si cela se vérifie ... et se fait suivant ce axe !! Ou EADS, cherche un moteur avec 10 % d'écos type GEnx ... et mettent 2 ans de retard aux livraisons!!Ou ils rentrent à la maison et ne se re-présentent pas !! Ou ils se présentent et protestent encore une foi, à leur tour , juste pour emmmm les US!! Mais cela ne sera pas sans conséquences dans les relations commerciales EU/US ... Sévrien l'expliquera sûrement ! ----------------- L'Article -------------------------- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... er310.html WASHINGTON — Boeing received a major boost from a House of Representatives subcommittee Wednesday, which proposed tight restrictions on the Pentagon as the Defense Department seeks new bids on a $40 billion contract for Air Force aerial-refueling tankers. The action was the first on Capitol Hill since the Air Force awarded the contract in February to Northrop Grumman and its partner, Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EADS) — a decision Boeing had protested. The contract, one of the largest in Defense Department history, eventually could be worth $100 billion After congressional auditors found "significant errors" in the award, the Defense Department decided to reopen the competition. Pentagon officials had indicated they'd release a draft of a revised request for bids by the end of July. But the action by the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee put a new twist in the Air Force's seven-year effort to replace more than 600 Eisenhower-era tankers. The defense-spending bill essentially would require the Pentagon to abide by the provisions of the earlier bid proposal, something the Government Accountability Office said it didn't do in the first contest. The language in the bill would require the Pentagon to seek a medium-sized tanker like the one Boeing offered and it would prohibit extra credit for a larger tanker like the one offered by Northrop-EADS. It also would require a new tanker be capable of refueling all planes currently flown by the Air Force, a requirement the Northrop-EADS tanker was unable to meet and that the Air Force dismissed in the earlier competition. Quel PB ?? Also, language in the bill would require the Pentagon to consider the cost of operating and maintaining the new tankers over a 40-year life cycle, rather than a 25-year cycle. That could favor the Boeing plane, which according to one analysis would use $35 billion less in fuel over 40 years. The Pentagon hopes to award the contract by the end of the year. The measure would provide more than $893.4 million for the tanker program in the coming fiscal year, but the Pentagon would have to get approval from the subcommittee before spending the money. Not surprisingly, Boeing was pleased. "We appreciate this strong bipartisan support for following the GAO recommendations and look forward to working with our customer towards delivering the right aircraft into the hands of the war fighter," Boeing said in a statement. The Defense Department declined to comment and Northrop-EADS had no immediate comment. The subcommittee's chairman, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., inserted the tanker language into the bill after nonstop lobbying by the No. 2 Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton. "The bottom line is this is good language," Dicks said. "We went through each of the GAO's recommendations and told them to fix it. I hope this sends a strong message to the Defense Department this needs to be done fairly." The bill will be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee after Congress' August recess, and it may be one of the few spending measures that are approved this year. The defense-spending bill is considered a must-pass measure, as it provides money for troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate has taken no action on its version of the bill. Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company J'ajoute aprés réflexion !! C'est presque trop pour être vraisemblable !! JPRS Paris (Message édité par Beochien le 02/08/2008 15h11) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 2 août 2008 13:29 | |
|
Bonjour Et le Seattle PI sur une autre onde ....le blog de James Wallace ! Guerre des communiqués à peut être 1 semaine de la publication officielle !! en pleins JO !! ----------------Début ---------------------- http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 144931.asp Tanker trash talk With the Pentagon perhaps just a week or so away from sending out a request for proposals on the Air Force tanker, the ongoing war of words between Boeing and Northrop backers has turned more ugly. The Boeing camp is upset at a hard-hitting radio ad from a group that calls itself "Alabamians to Build American Tankers.'' _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
freddu56
Inscrit le 19/01/2008 |
# 4 août 2008 11:33 | |
|
coups bas et compagnie cette histoire là !! c'est quoi le GAO ?? _________________ vive l' armée française |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 4 août 2008 12:28 | |
|
GAO : il suffit de lire les posts ci-dessus. Le sigle signifie " (US) Government Accountability Office". Vous êtes , sans doute (ou seulement 'peut-être' ?) jeune, freddu56. Si tel était le cas, il serait bon de prendre la bonne habitude de la curiosité intellectuelle ! Chercher sous GOOGLE !  |
||
|
|
||
|
xmadflyer
Inscrit le 02/03/2008 |
# 6 août 2008 19:52 | |
|
Bonjour, Officiellement, c'est parti pour un nouvel appel d'offre ! August 6, 2008 Air tanker rematch: Northrop Grumman vs. Boeing BY JAMES BERNSTEIN | Call it Tanker, Round 2. The Pentagon is expected to announce sometime Wednesday guidelines for a new round of bidding to build aerial refueling planes for the Air Force. Northrop Grumman Corp. of Los Angeles, which has a major facility in Bethpage, and Boeing Co. of Chicago, are expected to bid again on the program, which calls for building 179 tanker planes under a $35 billion contract. The Pentagon hopes to announce a winner by December. http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzta ... ?track=rss Et la version Les Echos : http://www.lesechos.fr/info/aero/300284784.htm Du blog de James Wallace ( Seattle PI ) : August 6, 2008 ----------- Here is part of that Reuters report, based on info from Congressional aides. The Pentagon also said it would give more credit for an aircraft's ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount, a decision that could favor the larger A330 plane offered by Northrop and its European subcontractor EADS, said the aides. At the same time, the revised request for proposals will measure life cycle costs over 40 years not 25, which could help Boeing with its smaller 767 aircraft, they said. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... ery=Boeing (Message édité par xmadflyer le 06/08/2008 20h57) |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
