|
|
От
|
Exeter
|
|
|
К
|
Олег Радько
|
|
|
Дата
|
02.08.2008 17:11:49
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
ВВС; Политек;
|
|
Если вкратце - КС-30В оказался несколько больше, чем КС-767
Соответственно, выше и возможности, уважаемый Олег Радько. Собственно, это основной пункт критики выбора ВВС со стороны GAO (Контрольного управления Конгресса) - что самолеты были не вполне равны, и следовательно решение было не вполне корректным. Справедливости ради, никто не мешал Boeing предложить более крупный заправщик на базе 777, но он этого не сделал, опасаясь, что, поскольку такой заправщик придется только разрабатывать, то в этом случае они заведомо проиграют по критериям "Proposal Risk" и по стоимости. Поэтому Boeing продолжал тащить КС-767, надеясь, видимо, что ВВС США все равно неамериканский самолет не выберут и что в любом случае контракт у него в кармане.
Если подробнее, то см. агитку победителей (Northrop Grumman), там основные критерии их успеха изложены.
Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won -- Key Selection Criteria
Highlighting reasons the U.S. Air Force selected the KC-45 Tanker as best for our men and women in uniform.
WASHINGTON, May 19, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman even though the Air Force conducted what even Boeing described as a fair, open and transparent bidding process. Here is another reason Northrop Grumman won, drawn from a list of facts included in a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document.
Key Selection Criteria
The Air Force analyzed the competing bids for the KC-X using five factors: Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and an Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (an analysis of tanker performance in a realistic global conflict scenario). Northrop Grumman won in four out of the five categories, and the two companies tied on the fifth (Proposal Risk). That's why the Air Force concluded, as it explained in a document outlining its decision that it provided to both companies, "Northrop Grumman Corporation's proposal offered the best overall value to the government. Northrop Grumman's proposal meets or exceeds the Air Force's requirements, as stated in the Request For Proposal (RFP)."
In Mission Capability, the Air Force focused on aerial refueling and airlift -- refueling receivers and transporting cargo, troops, and wounded soldiers to and from the battle theater. An Air Force document provided to both companies shows the KC-45 enjoyed a two-to-one advantage on key discriminators in these categories. In refueling, the Air Force concluded that compared to the KC-767, the KC-45:
* Could deliver more fuel at greater ranges (30 percent more at 1,000 nautical mile (nm) radius)
* Was more fuel efficient (6 percent at 1,000 nm radius)
* Could perform more refueling operations faster
* Featured a larger boom envelope twice the size of its competitor
* Could takeoff with more fuel from a 7,000-foot runway.
In airlift, the KC-45 could:
* Transport more cargo pallets (32 versus 19)
* Carry more passengers and patients
* Met the Air Force's ferry range requirement of 9,500 nm (the KC-767 did not)
The Air Force concluded that the KC-45 "Offers significant advantage in the important areas of aerial refueling and airlift, and represents superior value to the government."
A contractor's track record is a critical element when the Air Force makes contracting decisions. Can the bidder come in on time and on budget? On Past Performance, in the key sub-factor of program management, Northrop Grumman was assigned a "moderate" risk rating, while Boeing received a rating of "little confidence." As the Air Force guidelines state, "Substantial doubt exists the offeror will successfully perform the required effort." The reasons behind this assessment were redacted for business competition reasons, but the public record is clear that Boeing is behind schedule on delivering tankers to Italy and Japan.
On Cost/Price, Northrop Grumman's development plans were assigned a lower risk/cost than Boeing, because Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft and boom had already been built, flown and tested. Boeing's proposed version of the KC-767, which was significantly different from the less capable tanker sold to Japan and Italy, had not been built, flown or tested - and thus its development effort was assigned both higher risk/cost. For production, the Air Force concluded the KC-45 required "Substantially less funds required to develop and buy first 68 aircraft." By contrast, Boeing was rated as moderate risk because "Some difference exists between the offeror's proposed cost/price and the government's probable cost/price," and that those discrepancies had not been "reasonably explained." The overall life cycle cost for both tanker aircraft, which includes the cost of development, production, military construction and operating costs, were the same. The government concluded that "Northrop Grumman's more advantageous cost/price proposal was a discriminator in its decision to choose the KC-45."
In the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment, the government analyzed each competing tanker's operational capability. To do so, the Air Force simulated the operations of a KC-45 and KC-767 fleet in a highly realistic global conflict scenario using a verified and validated Air Force simulation tool. The tankers had to fly missions operating from real-world bases in a range of demanding roles. The simulation factored in the complex interactions of aircraft performance characteristics using ramp space constraints, real-world runway and ramp strengths, varying distances to multiple refueling orbits, and high levels of refueling demand. The KC-45 provided superior operational performance in realistic combat scenarios and was able to execute the operations using 22 fewer aircraft than the KC-767. This was "An efficiency of significant value" to the government.
Overall, the Air Force's rigorous analysis of the two competing tanker aircraft concluded that the government had more confidence in Northrop Grumman to provide a KC-45 with significantly more capability with multiple cost advantages. And that is why the Air Force picked the superior KC-45.
About the KC-45
The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-45 team will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.
-----------------------
Highlights
* KC-30B forms the baseline for Northrop Grumman's KC-30 offering in the U.S. Air Force's KC-X competition
* Australian program milestone further reduces risk in the integration of the refueling system and directly benefits the KC-30
* Australia and the United Arab Emirates have selected an aerial refueling configuration similar to that proposed by Northrop Grumman in the KC-X competition
С уважением, Exeter