Appel d'offre USAF pour avions ravitailleurs

Jeannot a écrit:Je trouve par ailleurs que nous entendons beaucoup parler du GenX en ce moment :
. Motorisation du 774 avec ses nouvelles ailes
. 350XWB
. Appel d'offres USAF
Bref le GenX est mis à toutes les sauces. Alors...

alain57 a écrit:humour ....!!!!!

http://blog.al.com/pr/2008/06/tanker_battle_funny_stuff.html

No Date Set Yet for USAF Tanker Re-bid
July 19, 2009

PrintEmail to a FriendAnalysis by: Doug McVitie, MA
Analysis of: Boeing vs. Northrop tanker contest may start in Sept
Published at: www.heraldnet.com
Summary

There's a French expression, "mener à bien", which perfectly sums up what needs to happen in the forthcoming USAF tanker contest. It means roughly, "to do (it) properly" or "to reach a proper result". This latest delay in re-bidding this contract is evidence the DoD is finally trying to get it right. Third time lucky...

Analysis

There are many in the aerospace and defense industry today who believe Boeing will build USAF's next fleet of tankers. But whichever side you take, and there are 10,000 clichés available to support either one, the basic premise remains the same -- politics, not aircraft economics will decide.

Although the tanker debate is less of a bloggers' paradise (it's too serious an issue, and anyway USAF doesn't give airmiles) and more of a Beltway problem, an awful lot of rubbish has still been written about the twice-failed attempts by the DoD to conduct a proper contest here.

As then-presidential nominee Walter Mondale famously mimicked a quarter of a century ago, "Where's the beef?".

The beef is actually less about the Northrop Grumman-led joint bid with EADS based on the Airbus A330 or about the competing Boeing 767 or 777, it's all about political taste. And as far as taste goes, I'm afraid this beef has gone off, senators.

How come? Simple. Whoever (Boeing) wins Round Three of this one-round contest, the victory will be tainted by open or covert accusations of bad faith, under-the-counter dealing, political interference, blatant protectionism and sheer jingoism, etc. Sort of like a boardroom blueprint for Airbus that, when you come to think of it...

USAF and the much-vaunted urgency of the tanker-replacement contract will play second fiddle to the breast-beating baloney of the losing team. What is more important? Political correctness run riot, or doing the job properly?

EADS has made a number of tactical errors in this contest, the DoD has made even more and to complete the sweep, Boeing has called it wrongly too. There are extenuating circumstances in all cases (well, except maybe for the DoD's crass incompetence) but when it all comes down to it, political expediency not technical prowess will be the final arbiter. And political expediency dictates a Boeing victory.

Unless someone somewhere comes up with a compelling set of arguments that will result in this award being split, the die is cast, surely. Or at least it will be once the DoD finally re-opens the contest in a couple of months.

Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA), whose home state hosts the majority Boeing's commercial operations, has been a vociferous proponent for the company on Capital Hill, hailing the report and calling it "encouraging" while decrying the "the damage that has been done to America's premier airline manufacturer which has suffered the loss of 20 percent of the market share -representing hundreds of billions of dollars in value and tens of thousands of jobs."

Dicks urged the Pentagon, which is currently preparing for a re-bid of the US Air Force tanker contract, to take into account the WTO ruling in its decision-making.

"The U.S. government cannot reward illegal market actions that have harmed U.S. manufacturers and stolen U.S. aerospace jobs," said Dicks. "The tanker contract must be awarded on the basis of a level playing field, and because of today's ruling that means it must account for the direct and unlawful subsidies that have allowed Airbus to launch the A330 and other large civil aircraft without the risks that other manufacturers must assume."

...
"Civil aircraft subsidies have no impact on military procurement and the WTO cases should not be permitted to have any bearing on the Defense Department's ability to buy the best tanker available for our war fighters.
...

"They didn't assess a damage amount, as of yet. But they said there was a violation of the rules and there was harm that happened to Boeing because of this ... aid that was illegal," Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas told Reuters on Friday.

Brownback, whose state is home to Boeing military production, was responding to a letter sent by Senator Richard Shelby on Thursday to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.
Shelby said the WTO had ruled that a "launch aid" loan mechanism used by European governments to help Airbus develop aircraft was legal under global trade rules and that Boeing "was not materially injured by action taken by Airbus."

BRIEF-US Air Force sees no impact on tanker rules from WTO ruling
09.14.09, 03:32 PM EDT



WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - The Air Force is close to releasing a draft request for proposals (RFP) in a multibillion dollar aerial refueling competition, and sees no need to add any specific language to the document as a result of a preliminary WTO ruling, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Monday.

Boeing ( BA - ) Co is competing for the contract against Northrop Grumman Corp ( NOC - ), which is teamed with Airbus parent EADS. Boeing supporters argue that a preliminary WTO decision, which found that Airbus benefitted from some illegal subsidies, should be factored into the U.S. competition.

Donley said the decision was preliminary, and would be followed by another case, brought by the European Union, which charged that Boeing also benefitted from illegal subsidies. 'We see no need to make immediate adjustments in the RFP,' Donley said.

USA/Ravitailleurs - Boeing hésite encore entre le 767 et le 777

publié le 15/09/2009 à 09:43, Reuters

WASHINGTON, 14 septembre (Reuters) - Boeing ne prévoit pas d'apporter des modifications importantes à ses modèles 767 et 777 pour l'appel d'offres à venir pour le contrat géant des avions ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'air américaine, a déclaré lundi un dirigeant du groupe.

Rick Lemaster, en charge du dossier chez Boeing, a déclaré à des journalistes attendre le cahier des charges définitif de l'US Air Force avant de décider s'il participerait à l'appel d'offres avec le 767 ou le 777.

Il s'exprimait lors d'une conférence de presse à l'occasion d'une réunion de l'Air Force Association à Washington.

Boeing est déterminé à tirer les leçons de l'échec subi lors de la première procédure organisée pour attribuer ce contrat de 179 appareils, estimé à 35 milliards de dollars.

Le Pentagone avait alors attribué le contrat au tandem formé par EADS , la maison mère d'Airbus, et le groupe américain Northop Grumman mais sa décision avait par la suite été annulée.

Boeing avait participé à la procédure initiale avec une version modifiée de son 767 car il était convaincu que l'Air Force ne voulait pas du 777.

Le Pentagone met actuellement la dernière main à la rédaction du cahier des charges du nouvel appel d'offres, qui marquera la troisième tentative depuis 2001 de remplacer la flotte actuelle de ravitailleurs, composée de KC-135 vieillissants.

Il n'a toutefois pas fixé la date de la publication de ce cahier des charges.

(Andrea Shalal-Esa, version française Marc Angrand)

Boeing eyes supplier shake-up for KC-X tanker contest
By Stephen Trimble

Boeing is considering supplier and manufacturing system changes as it looks to drive down costs in the next round of the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition.

The company's KC-767A proposal lost in the last round of the contest partly because the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team offered the Airbus A330-based KC-30B at a slightly cheaper price. Boeing successfully protested Northrop's contract award.

As the Department of Defense prepares to relaunch the bidding process in a few weeks, Boeing officials are determined to set "aggressive price targets" for selecting suppliers and even manufacturing locations.

For example, Boeing's Wichita, Kansas, facility remains in baseline proposals based on either the KC-767 or KC-777, says Rick Lemaster, Boeing's KC-X programme manger.

However, Boeing could still shift its tanker "finishing centre" from Wichita to another location to lower costs. Lemaster declines to identify competing sites, but confirms: "We are looking at alternatives. If we can find cheaper places to do the [finishing centre] work we will consider that."

Lower production costs form part of Boeing's strategy for offering the KC-777, Lemaster says. Boeing could leverage the higher monthly production rate of the 777 airliner, in comparison to the 767's output, he says. By using the 777's higher quantities, Boeing could obtain cheaper parts and materials from suppliers.

Boeing's quest for cost-savings has also reopened the 777's engine supplier to competition since the first time that the General Electric GE90-series was granted exclusivity to commercial suppliers.

Lemaster confirms all three certified engines - the GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent 800 - will be considered if Boeing decides to offer the KC-777. However, engines that have not been certified on the 777, such as the GEnx family, have been ruled out. "We don't think there's enough time for a certification programme," Lemaster says.

The DoD is expected to release a draft request for proposals for the KC-X competition before October. Boeing says a final RFP could be issued in October or November, followed by contract award in the third quarter of 2010.

Boeing previously offered a KC-767, which was based on structural and control system elements from the 767-200/300 and 400ER airliners. If Boeing decides to propose the KC-767 in the next round, the structures and control systems will come from the same aircraft type, Lemaster says.

No matter which aircraft Boeing offers, the company's tanker proposal will feature the latest cockpit systems available on the 787 or 777, Lemaster says.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland (Reuters) - Le secrétaire américain à la Défense, Robert Gates, a déclaré que son ministère allait transférer à l'armée de l'air la responsabilité du choix de son nouvel avion ravitailleur.
"La sélection du fournisseur revient à l'Air Force pour l'avion ravitailleur KC-X, et le projet de demande de propositions sera la prochaine étape", a dit Robert Gates dans un discours prononcé à l'occasion de la réunion annuelle de l'Air Force Association.
Cette décision ouvre la voie à la publication par l'armée de l'air du projet de cahier des charges pour le troisième appel d'offres prévu depuis huit ans pour le remplacement de la flotte vieillissante des avions ravitailleurs KC-135.
C'est la direction des approvisionnements du Pentagone qui avait assumé l'an dernier la responsabilité du dossier après l'annulation de l'octroi du contrat au tandem formé par EADS et Northrop Grumman, contesté par Boeing.
Le contrat est estimé à 35 milliards de dollars (24 milliards d'euros environ).
Le Government Accountability Office (GAO), l'équivalent de la Cour des comptes aux Etats-Unis, avait reproché à l'Air Force de n'avoir pas suivi des règles qu'elle avait elle-même édictées lors de l'évaluation des offres concurrentes.
Gates, qui avait annulé en septembre 2008 un projet de nouvel appel d'offres, a précisé que ses services continueraient de jour un rôle de supervision "solide" du processus.
Le secrétaire à l'armée de l'air, Michael Donley, a salué la nouvelle en soulignant que le remplacement du KC-135 restait la priorité numéro un de l'Air Force.
Il a ajouté que le projet de cahier des charges était sur le point d'être publié et qu'il serait transmis aux constructeurs "avec un délai confortable pour des discussions". Le cahier des charges définitif est prévu pour la fin de l'année et le choix du constructeur pour 2010.
Boeing s'est dit impatient de coopérer avec l'armée de l'air sur ce dossier. Quant à Northrop, il a déclaré rester confiant dans la capacité de son avion, dérivé de l'Airbus A330, à remporter une nouvelle fois le contrat.
Jim Wolf et Andrea Shalal-Esa, version française Marc Angrand

Boeing backers eye adding trade to tanker contest

* U.S. draft request expected later this week
* Some U.S. lawmakers weighing legislative action
* Believe WTO ruling against Airbus must be considered
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Sept 22 (Reuters) - Lawmakers who back Boeing Co said they were considering legislative action to ensure the Pentagon did not exempt Airbus parent EADS from U.S. export restrictions and other laws in a $35-billion refueling aircraft competition that resumes this week.
Representative Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas -- where Boeing has a big plant -- said on Tuesday he expected to see a draft request for proposals for the new competition on Thursday.
The Air Force's third attempt to begin replacing its aging KC-135 tankers is being closely watched by lawmakers supporting Boeing, and those backing a rival bid by Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS.
Northrop won a contract for 179 tankers in February 2008, but the Pentagon canceled the deal in September 2008 after government auditors found the Air Force had not followed its own rules in evaluating the bids.
Tiahrt said the Air Force needed to take into account a preliminary World Trade Organization ruling, that concluded Airbus' A330 and A340 planes benefited from about $5 billion in illegal subsidies, when deciding which tankers to buy.
He said the subsidies had already given Airbus an "unfair advantage" in the commercial marketplace, costing Boeing jobs in the United States. Now it was crucial to ensure that Boeing was not disadvantaged in the tanker competition as well.
"That's why I think it's important that they include recognition ... and financial acknowledgment of these illegal subsidies," Tiahrt told reporters after touring a demonstrator of the cockpit for Boeing's 767 tanker outside the Capitol.
IRANIAN HELICOPTER SALES?
Tiahrt said the Pentagon previously exempted the Northrop bid from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, export restrictions, cost accounting standards, and rules on the foreign content of specialty metals, and should not be allowed to do that again.
He said EADS had pitched a small military helicopter at a recent air show in Iran, raising concerns that it was leveraging work done on the U.S. Army's UH-72 Light Utility Helicopter into helicopter sales to a U.S. enemy.
EADS spokesman Guy Hicks said his company scrupulously adhered to every U.S. law that governs foreign sales and the protection of national security and military technologies, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
He said EADS was not marketing a version of the U.S. Army helicopter to Iran, and any foreign sales of that helicopter would be led by the U.S. government.
Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said he was puzzled that lawmakers were raising these issues again since they had been addressed and debated during the last competition.
"Boeing's supporters must believe that disqualifying Northrop Grumman's tanker offer is the only way to guarantee a Boeing win, which implies that that they feel Boeing won't have the best tanker for the warfighter," Belote said.
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS
Depending on how the Air Force tanker request looks, Tiahrt and other lawmakers could act to ensure the trade issue and waivers are addressed in the new competition.
"We will look at legislative solutions," said Representative Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, where Boeing has its largest manufacturing facilities.
The Air Force exempted the trade issue from the last competition and officials say the recent WTO ruling does not require changes to the draft request for proposals.
Some details of the WTO ruling have leaked out, but there are differing accounts.
Boeing supporters say the preliminary WTO report upheld the U.S. view that Airbus received illegal subsidies to the detriment of Boeing, while Northrop backers say it concluded a European loan mechanism was in fact legal.
European Union Ambassador John Bruton said on Monday the WTO ruling concluded launch aid was not automatically illegal, but depended on the conditions under which it was given.
Scott Hamilton, defense analyst with Leeham Co, said Boeing supporters should be cautious about playing up the WTO issue, since a separate European case against alleged illegal U.S. subsidies to Boeing was also nearing an end.
"Be careful what you ask for," Hamilton said. "I know Northrop will bring the WTO up in the event Boeing is called offside. Then what? Buy Russian?" (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Breaking news: Here is our synopsis from DOD to Congress this morning.

The Draft RFP will be available 25 September.

Our quick takes:

1.Boeing and its supporters want a Low Price, Technically Acceptable evaluation. Northrop and its supporters wanted a Best Value evaluation. The USAF said this will be a Best Value competition, provided the competing price comes within 1% of each other. No clear winner on the “wants” on this one.
2.The USAF is clear: price alone won’t be the only determining factor. Life-cycle costs and “MILCON” requirements (runways, taxiways, ramps, hangars) will be considered. This almost certainly will work against a KC-777, which weighs roughly 50% more than the KC-30 even if dimensionally there isn’t much difference. In the Round 2 competition, it’s obvious by the Northrop win that the USAF was comfortable with the extra size and weight of the KC-30 vs. the KC-767, so we are going to go out on a limb and assume there will be no disadvantage to Northrop on this criteria this time.
3.Fuel burn will be considered and cost evaluated accordingly. This favors the KC-767, the smaller airplane to the KC-30, especially if Boeing puts winglets on the airplane–further reducing fuel burn by roughly 4%. This works against the 777 compared with the KC-30.
4.Delivery of the first production KC-X is 2015, five years from the presumed contract award next year. This could be a challenge for a KC-777, which is nothing but a “paper” airplane at this point.
5.Northrop threatened to protest or even sue over its allegations that the USAF improperly provided Boeing with its cost information during the GAO protest process. The USAF rejected Northrop’s complaint as being properly handled in the first place and irrelevant to this new process in the second place. Northrop is the loser on this point.
6.The Air Force rejected calls by Boeing’s supporters to consider the interim WTO report finding Airbus illegally benefited from subsidies. The USAF noted, as we did, that the WTO report can be appealed and the EU complaint against Boeing has yet to be delivered, and it too can be appealed. The USAF included a hold-harmless clause in the DRFP, as it did in the Round 2 RFP, protecting it from any penalties that might be imposed on either side. Boeing and its supporters are the clear loser on this one.

“…We will be expecting civility, objectivity, and a focus on the warfighter and the taxpayer from all parties,” says the briefing delivered by Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn.

UPDATE 1-Boeing may offer US Air Force choice of tankers

WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Boeing Co said Friday it is studying new draft bidding rules to decide which plane or planes to pit against the rival team of Northrop Grumman Corp and EADS's EADS.PA Airbus in a renewed $35 billion contest to supply refueling aircraft to the U.S. Air Force.
Boeing said it has not yet decided whether to stick with its modified 767 tanker, which lost a previous, canceled competition, or go to a larger 777-based tanker.
The Pentagon spelled out Thursday how the winner of the competition would be picked.
"Our next step is to conduct a detailed review of the document," a Boeing statement said. "We want to understand how requirements will be defined and prioritized and how the proposals will be evaluated."
"That information will help us decide which plane to offer or whether to offer both planes. We appreciate that there will be frequent, open discussion with the U.S. Air Force as we go forward.
Northrop-EADS is proposing a tanker based on the Airbus A-330.
The companies have 60 days to comment on the Air Force's request for proposal, published Friday, before final bidding specifications are released. (Reporting by Jim Wolf, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Northrop defers comment on US tanker draft rules

WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Northrop Grumman Corp said Friday it is deferring public comment on draft bidding rules in a renewed competition against Boeing Co for a $35 billion U.S. Air Force tanker fleet.
"We will defer further public comments until we have completed our review," said Randy Belote, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman, which has teamed with Europe's EADS to offer a tanker based on the Airbus A-330. (Reporting by Jim Wolf; editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Decoding the KC-X Draft RFP
Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/25/2009 10:59 AM CDT

I'll leave it to you to pore through the KC-X draft RFP in detail, but I thought I'd take a quick delve into the aspect that intrigues me most about the US Air Force's new source-selection strategy - the balance of mandatory and non-mandatory requirements and what part, if any, they might play in the final decision.

Instead of the 808 requirements in the last KC-X competition, only 37 of which were mandatory, this time round there are 373 mandatory requirements and 93 non-mandatory, "above threshold" or "trade space" requirements. The bidders have to meet all 373 mandatory requirements to qualify - it's a pass/fail test.

The intent is to reduce the room for interpretation - or misinterpretation - of the requirements by the bidders and the evaluators. Last time round, there was too much room in the trade space, and bidders complained they did not know which requirements the customer valued most.

This time, the mandatory requirements are what the Air Force wants in the aircraft as delivered, to go to war. The non-mandatory requirements are additional things the Air Force considers valuable, but is not prepared to pay much for.

Here's how it will work. The source-selection team will first evaluate the bids to see if they meet the mandatory requirements. Assuming both bids are compliant, price proposals will be opened. The prices offered by the bidders will then be adjusted for three factors: wartime effectiveness and peacetime efficiency (fuel burn and military construction costs - changes to hangars, ramps, taxiways and runways needed to accommodate the new tanker).

For wartime effectiveness, if the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) model finds one bidder can meet peak refueling demand with fewer aircraft, its price will be adjusted downwards. For peacetime efficiency, the savings in fuel burn compared to today's KC-135 fleet and the costs to modify KC-135 bases to accommodate each tanker will be "dollarized" to adjust the proposed prices.

If - and only if - the two proposal prices are within 1% of each other, after all these adjustments, will the non-mandatory requirements come into play. It seems hard to believe the two bids could end up that close, but the above-threshold requirements are there to act as a tie-breaker.

And there is almost no wiggle room in interpretation of the non-mandatory requirements. Each is worth a certain number of "trade space" points, and is either met or not met - there is no partial credit. The exception is fuel offload capability above the minimum set by the mandatory requirement, and even there how the points will be awarded is clearly delineated.

Fuel offload is an example of mandatory versus non-mandatory requirements. The mandatory minimum requirement is defined by a fuel offload versus unrefuelled radius line on a chart:

Source: US Air Force - click on image to enlarge

Trade-space points are awarded for exceeding the minimum offload requirement in specific increments, each additional line on the chart corresponding to a specific increase in operational capability. Line A, worth 4 points, is the fuel offload needed to provide 1 hour additional flying time to a pair of F-16s. Line D, worth 10 points, is the fuel offload needed to provide 1 hour additional flying time to four F-22s. There are NO additional points available for being above Line D.

Fuel offload is one of only four above-threshold requirements worth 10 points. The others are the ability to transfer and receive fuel at maximum in-flight gross weight and to meet the mandatory minimum fuel offload requirement from a 7,000ft runway. Six trade-space requirements are worth 4 points each, and include aft viewing capability and the ability to load and unload cargo without major reconfiguration of the aircraft.

There are 19 non-mandatory requirements worth 1 point each, such as secure satcom; 49 worth 1/3 of a point, and these include the ability to refuel the V-22 tiltrotor; and 15 worth 1/4 of a point, such as a redundant centreline hose-and-drogue unit. In all, the trade-space scores add up to just over 103 points. So the maximum fuel-offload score, for example, is worth less than 10% of the total.

And here's the rub - the Air Force judges that all of those non-mandatory requirements are worth a premium of no more than 1% on the total acquisition price of the KC-X. So offering much more than is asked for doesn't look worthwhile unless the original proposal price is low.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS are not commenting publicly on the draft RFP yet, but the rules of the game seem to be: bid low, aim for the lowest fuel burn and military-construction costs, maximise your IFARA score, and box clever in the tie-breaker.

the rules of the game seem to be: bid low, aim for the lowest fuel burn
and military-construction costs, maximise your IFARA score, and box
clever in the tie-breaker.