Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II  
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12796 posts, RR: 46
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This thread is a continuation of the first part, which was getting too long.

Part I can be found here:
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program (by Zeke Sep 25 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

I would take this opportunity to remind members of a couple of our rules:

All posts must be respectful of other members. Debate the topic, not the other member.

Either post facts backed-up with reputable sources, or make it clear what you're saying is your opinion. The moderators have been somewhat relaxed in applying the rules in this forum, but this particular topic has generated some very robust debate. If you cannot backup your "facts" or you don't make it clear you're expressing an opinion, posts will be deleted.

Enjoy!  smile 


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
306 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16336 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter):
I would take this opportunity to remind members of a couple of our rules:

All posts must be respectful of other members. Debate the topic, not the other member.

Either post facts backed-up with reputable sources, or make it clear what you're saying is your opinion. The moderators have been somewhat relaxed in applying the rules in this forum, but this particular topic has generated some very robust debate. If you cannot backup your "facts" or you don't make it clear you're expressing an opinion, posts will be deleted.

Thanks Scbriml.

Zeke, the link you provided about the Boeing Boom is a paid to view site. I cannot go there.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16120 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Zeke, the link you provided about the Boeing Boom is a paid to view site. I cannot go there.

You can if you pay. As I originally posted, it was a subscription only article.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16021 times:

Dr. Thompson's article (linked) is something to ponder. My theory is that NG is trying to neutralize the politics--both Boeing's advantage in votes in the Congress and the potential for an adverse WTO ruling against EADS. (Anyone out there that still thinks this is about pallets?) The big question is IF...big IF...EADS (no, not NG, sorry) decides to try the same gambit they successfully performed the last time and threaten to walk, will the USAF follow after and kiss their @$$ again to stay in the game?

BTW, Gen Lichte retires soon. Will that have an impact? From what I read in the media, he has been a big supporter of the airbus.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ta...mman-thinks-it-cant-win?a=1&c=1129

Quote:
From Northrop Grumman's perspective, this is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, the superior performance features of its plane get little credit. On the other hand, it has to offer a competitive price on a plane that is intrinsically more expensive to build and operate than the smaller Boeing tanker, at least on a per-plane basis. To make matters worse, Boeing and its backers are invoking a recent World Trade Organization finding that Airbus commercial transports were illegally subsidized to cast doubt on whatever price Northrop actually does bid. So unless the Boeing plane fails to meet some mandatory requirement, Northrop figures its rival is almost certain to win. And after what happened the last time around, Boeing isn't in a mood to make any concessions. Given the high risks associated with an 18-year, fixed-price contract, Northrop Grumman may not bid at all unless there are changes to the process.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15907 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
The big question is IF...big IF...EADS (no, not NG, sorry) decides to try the same gambit they successfully performed the last time and threaten to walk, will the USAF follow after and kiss their @$$ again to stay in the game?

My personal opinion is that 1) they won't try the same tactic, and 2) if they do try the same tactic it will backfire.

The reason I don't think they will try it is because the last time around the purchaser was still stinging from the Boeing scandal and they were willing to do anything to ensure two vendors were involved in the process to at least give the appearance that the contract was competitively bid so that it would appear the taxpayer was getting their money's worth. Add to it the fact that their biggest proponent - Sen. McCain - was a staunch Boeing basher and EADS/NG knew the Air Force would bend over backwards to kiss their a$$.

This time around the landscape has changed. Boeing's scandal is a distant memory; we're in the midst of a huge economic downturn (read job losses); the WTO has essentially said that Airbus doesn't play the fair competitive game; and with the trillions in government spending going on, people are simply going to be pissed off if any taxpayer money goes offshore (you and I know that's not the case, but that's how it will read when the experts spin this). Finally, McCain & Co no longer hold sway over this deal like they did last time.

If EADS/NG were to whine and say they're not going to bid because the deal is stacked against them, I suspect the Air Force will tell them goodbye and to come back and try again in 10 year's time when KC-Y is put out to bid.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15903 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
If EADS/NG were to whine and say they're not going to bid because the deal is stacked against them, I suspect the Air Force will tell them goodbye and to come back and try again in 10 year's time when KC-Y is put out to bid.

That is correct. There is no reason for the USAF to be kissing EADS-NA's a$$ this time around. I wonder if EADS realizes this?

Crying about the specs. the USAF needs will not do anything for either Boeing or NG/EADS. The customer has sent a strong message this time around the new tanker WILL BE built to USAF specs., noit Boeing's, and not EADS's.

I doubt NG will want to walk away from the KC-X deal, but they are not calling the shots here. EADS is.

EADS will attempt to save face to loosing the USAF tanker deal by saying it did not compete.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4859 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
the WTO has essentially said that Airbus doesn't play the fair competitive game

That is bold statement to make RedFlyer since the report of the WTO has not even been published.  Smile And if the rumors hold any truth at all, both sides will get something out of the complaint (about 70% of US claims were supposedly not upheld, but the US was still quite happy with the 30%)

And the EU-protest at the WTO has not even been ruled upon, let alone a detailed explanation published, but indications are (rumors again) that most of what the EU protested against, could be upheld which would be a more serious blow to the US case.

But let's not speculate on this until both rulings are in and published. So we can also not let them play a decisive part in this bid. Although they can be used (misused?) to create a certain political climate to stear the order to Boeing. Sadly enough that usage or mis-usage of the political climate has been the case on this tanker deal since the first KC767 award by the USAF which in the end turned out to be a fraud.  Sad


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15862 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 6):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
the WTO has essentially said that Airbus doesn't play the fair competitive game

That is bold statement to make RedFlyer since the report of the WTO has not even been published.

Okay, fair enough. But the ruling has been handed down, at least an interim one, no? Perhaps the "official" report is still lying in wait, but we know that in the interim ruling it was determined that Airbus received illegal launch aid. Regardless, we can eliminate this part of the argument, above, altogether and it won't change the the current landscape that EADS/NG finds themselves in at the moment. The focus last time around, at least from all the public haggling that occurred, was to ensure two players who would compete for the contract. This time around the center of gravity seems to be focused on getting the Air Force a mission capable airplane for the best value. I still think if EADS/NG threatens to walk away they will only be cutting off their nose to spite their face. (But I still don't think they will.)



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7479 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 15712 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
Quote:
From Northrop Grumman's perspective, this is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, the superior performance features of its plane get little credit. On the other hand, it has to offer a competitive price on a plane that is intrinsically more expensive to build and operate than the smaller Boeing tanker, at least on a per-plane basis.

Well, that was always the case, even on the civilian front the A330 is more a/c than the 767 hence more expensive, however, in their last victory, the Air Force valued the increased capabilities over the higher price.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Crying about the specs. the USAF needs will not do anything for either Boeing or NG/EADS. The customer has sent a strong message this time around the new tanker WILL BE built to USAF specs., noit Boeing's, and not EADS's.

Not being too technical, but they still have the same problem, other than the 737 and A320, neither OEM has "similar" a/c in their inventory, essentially that is their trade mark, one up the competition with a larger model. To make a competiton between two dis-similar a/c the Air Force will have to play with numbers, so what's to stop the politico's from doing the same thing?

The one thing EADS / NG may have on their side is that some influential Air Force brass wants the A330, so they may as well see how far they are willing to push for their "preferred" product, selecting Boeing the second time around will put egg on their face, and to some people, saving face is very important, especially if you want the money dealers to continue to listen to you.

All in all interesting times ahead.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15586 times:

I wonder if some of the A330-200F specifics will be taken over for the KC-X proposal. Nose lnding gear deck and cargo door.. However it seems the new RFP doesn't award capabilities to much so propbably not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkV2f31wFt4

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15540 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 6):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
the WTO has essentially said that Airbus doesn't play the fair competitive game

That is bold statement to make RedFlyer since the report of the WTO has not even been published.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Okay, fair enough. But the ruling has been handed down, at least an interim one, no?

There cannot be different reports between the interim report and the final report. To do anything else will bring the WTO's politics into question. The final report will reflect what the interim report said, except go into more detail. That can only hurt EADS/Airbus even more than the interim report did.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 8):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
Quote:
From Northrop Grumman's perspective, this is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, the superior performance features of its plane get little credit. On the other hand, it has to offer a competitive price on a plane that is intrinsically more expensive to build and operate than the smaller Boeing tanker, at least on a per-plane basis.

Well, that was always the case, even on the civilian front the A330 is more a/c than the 767 hence more expensive, however, in their last victory, the Air Force valued the increased capabilities over the higher price.

What do you mean "superior performance"? The A-330 is 40% bigger than the B-767-200 is. Of course the bigger airplane will have more range, pax load, ect. But that is not waht the US taxpayers want. The USAF doesn't need the bigger airplane, whether the A-330 or B-777. They need a more capable, faster, and more manuverable airplane as the new tanker at the best price. In each case, the KC-767 fit the bill.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Crying about the specs. the USAF needs will not do anything for either Boeing or NG/EADS. The customer has sent a strong message this time around the new tanker WILL BE built to USAF specs., noit Boeing's, and not EADS's.

Not being too technical, but they still have the same problem, other than the 737 and A320, neither OEM has "similar" a/c in their inventory, essentially that is their trade mark, one up the competition with a larger model. To make a competiton between two dis-similar a/c the Air Force will have to play with numbers, so what's to stop the politico's from doing the same thing?

That is not the USAF's problem. Each OEM offered the airplane they thought best fit the RFP. Airbus did have another product they could have offered that closely matched the B-767-200, it was their A-310-300, but they did not offer it.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 8):
The one thing EADS / NG may have on their side is that some influential Air Force brass wants the A330, so they may as well see how far they are willing to push for their "preferred" product, selecting Boeing the second time around will put egg on their face, and to some people, saving face is very important, especially if you want the money dealers to continue to listen to you.

Many of those Generals were retired because of ethics problems, like Moseley was. Light is retiring soon. But there were as many, if not more other USAF senior officers who preferred the B-767.

This time around is going to be based on what the last compitition should have been, the lowest price, without jocking around false numbers to get the answer they wanted to show to Congress.

There are just two factors that will make this decision;
1. The new tanker must meet ALL 373 mandatory specs. to be considered.
2. The lowest price with all factors accurately calulated*.

* if the price of two, or more offers are within 1% of each other, only then will the tie breaker, or "run-off" come into play. That will be the new tanker that meets the highest scored number of non-mandatory specs., based on the cumlitive scoring of each of those non-mandatrory specs.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
I wonder if some of the A330-200F specifics will be taken over for the KC-X proposal. Nose lnding gear deck and cargo door.. However it seems the new RFP doesn't award capabilities to much so propbably not.

No, it will not. If EADS decides to compete the A-330F, it will still have to meet all the requirements I outlined above. The first and most important spec. to meet is that of the tanker mission, all other "add on" missions are secondary.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4859 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The final report will reflect what the interim report said, except go into more detail. That can only hurt EADS/Airbus even more than the interim report did.

No, it will hurt the US case much more. The US case is presumably going to be hurt much more since the vast majority of the rumors on both protests are signaling that most of what Airbus does which was protested by the US will be declared legal en most of the things the EU protested on regarding Boeing will be upheld as well. On the US protest against the EU/Airbus, much more information is known since that decision, though still to be published, is further in the process. 70% of what the US protested on will be rejected by the WTO, and the US-protest was on the A380 financing only. So it can not be relevant to the KC-X at all. The EU protest listed many issues against the financing of Boeing as whole.  Wink

But again, all this is highly speculative and is best left out this already highly complicated bid as none of the consequences that the final ruling on both protests might have, are known to any of us. They will be bigger then only this bid for sure.  Wink


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15413 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The final report will reflect what the interim report said, except go into more detail. That can only hurt EADS/Airbus even more than the interim report did.

No, it will hurt the US case much more. The US case is presumably going to be hurt much more since the vast majority of the rumors on both protests are signaling that most of what Airbus does which was protested by the US will be declared legal en most of the things the EU protested on regarding Boeing will be upheld as well. On the US protest against the EU/Airbus, much more information is known since that decision, though still to be published, is further in the process. 70% of what the US protested on will be rejected by the WTO, and the US-protest was on the A380 financing only. So it can not be relevant to the KC-X at all. The EU protest listed many issues against the financing of Boeing as whole.

The interim report was pretty much against EADS and the European Government substides. The report talks mostly about the A-380 funding, but also inplied funding on the A-340/A-330 project and A-300/A-310 project. Only the A0-320 so far has escaped.

The interim report is not rumors. I don't see where 70% of the US protest was rejected.

The US protest was on all Airbus airplanes, not just the A-380.

The EU protest against Boeing is a seperate case and won't be rulled upon for more than a year from now.

Do you honestly believe that the US politicians, who will be looking for votes from unemployed voters next year will let the USAF not consider the WTO ruling?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
They will be bigger then only this bid for sure.

That I agree with.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15279 times:

It is interesting to note that Boeing's lawyers, who are involved with this WTO protest have a good insite as to the actual discussions and what will and what will not be in the final report issued from the WTO. It will essentially be the same as the interim report we all have now scene.

The WTO cannot change its report at all from the interim report, no matter how hard the EADS, French, German, Spainsh, and British lawyers try.

Here is the link and reasons why they cannot change. I know that many of you already have made up your minds this is a Boeing blog, and will be in denial of the facts. But facts are fact.

http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/11/04/wto-ruling/


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10170 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15087 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
But facts are fact.

http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/20...ling/

Facts are indeed facts.
It's difficult to see where this biased editorial fits in with any discussion about facts, though.

Rgds


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15030 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Facts are indeed facts.
It's difficult to see where this biased editorial fits in with any discussion about facts, though.

While I agree this is a pro-Boeing link, it does however bring true unbiased facts to the day light. In this case from lawyers who are actually involved in the WTO cases. Pro-EADS sites also do the same thing occasionally.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 15023 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
In this case from lawyers who are actually involved in the WTO cases.

If they are involved with the case, they would know better than to talk about a confidential interim finding before it is made public. That is how people end up in goal.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15007 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
In this case from lawyers who are actually involved in the WTO cases.

If they are involved with the case, they would know better than to talk about a confidential interim finding before it is made public. That is how people end up in goal.

Correct, except in this case they are commenting on publicly released information, which is the WTO interim ruling released in September.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 14970 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Correct, except in this case they are commenting on publicly released information, which is the WTO interim ruling released in September.

It has not been made public. If it was, you could provide me with a link to it on the WTO website like all their other public rulings.

The point about INTERIUM rulings, is they are there for both parties to comment on BEFORE the final ruling appropriately amended and released to the public.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14773 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Correct, except in this case they are commenting on publicly released information, which is the WTO interim ruling released in September.

It has not been made public. If it was, you could provide me with a link to it on the WTO website like all their other public rulings.

The WTO site is difficult to navigate through. I could not find what I was looking for. But there are several news outlet links I will provide.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wto...ng-airbus-trade-dispute-2009-09-02

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58A5N720090911

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
The point about INTERIUM rulings, is they are there for both parties to comment on BEFORE the final ruling appropriately amended and released to the public.

If the decision has already been made by the WTO, why would they need further comments from either party? Isn't that what the initial discussions were for? The lawyers on both sides have already put the cases to the WTO.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14728 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):

The WTO site is difficult to navigate through. I could not find what I was looking for. But there are several news outlet links I will provide.

You cannot find anything as it has not been released, it is a draft report and is confidential.

Quote:
The WTO has issued an interim report in a long-running spat between the US and the EU over airline subsidies, media sources reported last week. The confidential ruling, which was said to have largely found in favour of Washington, could impact a pending US military deal for refuelling tankers worth an estimated US$ 35 billion.

from http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/55268/

Quote:
The ruling is preliminary and kept confidential while the U.S. government, the E.U., Boeing and Airbus comment on it.

from http://www.lloyds.com/CmsPhoenix/DowJonesArticle.aspx?id=439928

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
If the decision has already been made by the WTO, why would they need further comments from either party?

The WTO has not ruled yet, this is a draft/interium/pleminary or whatever other term you may wish to use. They get feedback on the draft before from the parties involved before the final ruling is made and it is released to the public.

I do not expect the final ruling to be made until some time after the draft/interium/pleminary findings from the EU case against the USA is released, what we hear so far is very one sided. I wonder if people like yourself will be as supportive of the WTO then that decision is handed down and finds what the US has been doing illegal again (that would not the first time the WTO has ruled against Boeing's business practices)

Keep in mind that EADS/Airbus performed its development work under a WTO sanctioned agreement between the EU and the USA on large civil aircraft (which the US government agreed to), it was the US government that unilaterally withdrew from the that WTO agreement against the terms of the agreement.

The US government subsequently took the EU to the WTO for what was done within the terms of that agreement. At no stage do you see US lawmakers or Boeing refer to the WTO agreement on large civil aircraft that was in place at the time.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14719 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
The WTO has not ruled yet, this is a draft/interium/pleminary or whatever other term you may wish to use. They get feedback on the draft before from the parties involved before the final ruling is made and it is released to the public.

Actually, Zeke, I think the purpose of the draft/interim ruling is to let both sides know how the WTO is going to rule on the particular case, and then allow the parties to see if they can come to a settlement on their own and avoid further litigation. But you are right in that the report - or any report of any kind - has not been released. The WTO simply notified both sides of their findings and in the WTO's mind they hope the parties will settle without further litigation.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
I do not expect the final ruling to be made until some time after the draft/interium/pleminary findings from the EU case against the USA is released,

I don't think the two cases are tied to one another and are being looked at as individual and separate matters, which is to say the final ruling on the first claim will come out regardless of what the status is on the second claim. (But I could be wrong.)



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14709 times:

Looks like it will be B767 vs A330, 777 option seems to be abandonned by Boeing for now.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/184522.asp

Quoting from the article:

Boeing will offer a 767-based aerial refueling tanker to the U.S. Air Force and not a 777-based tanker, Leeham News and Comment predicts.

Boeing executives have talked up a possible 777-based tanker since a competing team of Northrup Grumman and EADS won the previous tanker competition in large part because their Airbus A330-based tanker was larger than Boeing's 767-based entrant. The Pentagon threw out that result after congressional auditors found serious flaws in the process.

Leeham says Boeing will stick with the 767 because:

* It cannot afford another new airplane program right now;
* It has already spent billions to develop the KC-767 tanker for the international market;
* The 777 is more open to allegations that it benefited from illegal subsidies, potentially weakening that argument against the Northrop-EADS tanker;
* It has enough problems with the KC-767;

* A Boeing executive already has said the company is "leaning" toward the 767;
I agree with Leeham for the above reasons and also because the Air Force's draft request for proposals:

* Puts more of an emphasis on the lowest-priced plane that meets the basic need, with little advantage for extra capacity;
* Would not give the 777-based tanker extra credit over the A330-based tanker for the fact that it could offload 30 percent more fuel;
* Has timelines that could be tough for a 777-based tanker to meet;
* Has a fixed-price requirement that would drive up the risks for a 777-based proposal.




[edit post]
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14694 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
I don't think the two cases are tied to one another and are being looked at as individual and separate matters, which is to say the final ruling on the first claim will come out regardless of what the status is on the second claim. (But I could be wrong.)

I would disagree, I do see this being settled in the form a new agreement on the development of large civil aircraft. The two WTO cases in my view just reinforce what was in the previous agreement, it will end up being a waste of time for political point scoring.

The US and the EU are very well aware that this is no longer a two player market, in the next 5 years you will have the best part of 5 vendors offering products that are at the lower end of the Boeing/Airbus product line, many with larger aspirations.

The way aircraft development is done in China for example if highly state subsidized from development, manufacturing, through to purchasing.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 22):
Looks like it will be B767 vs A330, 777 option seems to be abandonned by Boeing for now.

As expected, other point against the 777.
- not enough time to develop the new tanker (previously stated by Boeing to be around 4 years)
- not enough production slots
- cost



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4859 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
would disagree, I do see this being settled in the form a new agreement on the development of large civil aircraft. The two WTO cases in my view just reinforce what was in the previous agreement, it will end up being a waste of time for political point scoring.

The US and the EU are very well aware that this is no longer a two player market, in the next 5 years you will have the best part of 5 vendors offering products that are at the lower end of the Boeing/Airbus product line, many with larger aspirations.

I can only agree with this post. That is exactly how it is going to end. Indeed a waste of time in a time where other threats to Airbus and Boeing are emerging around the world. The production lines from Airbus in China, and probably Embraer too, are significant and are also an attempt to slow down the Chinese how are certainly capable of developing an airliner industrial complex on their own.


25 Post contains links Lumberton : Which is why I think DOD has been so guarded in their statement that they won't consider the WTO issue--yet! Here's a column authored by Dr. Loren Th
26 KC135TopBoom : No, that is the ruling from the WTO. Actually, I am not a fan of the WTO. Exactly what is the US doing illegally? The ruling released has nothing to
27 Post contains links Zeke : I have read recently that Ashton Carter, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, has ruled it out. If they include one, you have to include b
28 Lumberton : I see posters here assuming that the WTO will rule for the EU in the case against the US. What if they don't? BTW, IF Ashton Carter did rule it out,
29 Zeke : The WTO will, for the same reason it ruled in favor of the US. Under the US/EU large civil aircraft agreement both the EU and US agreed to funding ci
30 Par13del : The case against either OEM will have adverse effects, but as it relates to the US Air Force RFP for a new tanker, I'm unsure how it will affect Boei
31 XT6Wagon : Nah the real kicker is how much the EU is going to find out that it just threw Airbus under the bus with its protest if its upheld. Someone forgot to
32 EPA001 : Actually is is the other way around. The US walked away from the US-EU agreement. If it backfires to them, they will have thrown Boeing under the bus
33 Par13del : I guess you will have to define "The US" for that statement to be accurate, certainely the states that gave concessions are repaid each year as the c
34 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Do you really think Carter will have the last word on this? they would only include both if the second interium ruling come out before the USAF selec
35 Zeke : I could not agree with you more. If the US wants to purchase the KC-767 for that reason, fine go ahead an do it, just call a spade a spade, do not pr
36 Stitch : I admit to continually being amazed that a dual-buy is not being pushed in Congress. Unemployment is anywhere from 10-30% depending on what statistics
37 KC135TopBoom : Stitch, our Congress has already spent us into bankruptcy with all these huge and as yet unfunded bills they pass. Adding two new tankers to the USAF
38 Lumberton : I don't know how you know this. I don't recall a final decision for the U.S. I certainly haven't read the WTO favoring the EU in its complaint. So...
39 Ken777 : Why? 18 months is nothing, as the last RFP showed. Why not just ensure that the political side is satisfied, that the tanker drivers consider it the
40 Stitch : Of course we do. The US Government literally prints it every day and the world keeps buying up the securities that back it. People snipe at EADS and
41 Zeke : Logic and politics do not seem to follow, unless it is as obvious as a stain on some girls blouse. It is not the cheapest option, that kind of statem
42 Astuteman : They might not be wrong, of course....... What's interesting about this is that I haven't seen anything in the interim report that says the A330 spec
43 Par13del : Once the US walked away from the initial agreement and filed a case at the WTO, the EU responded with their case, which is where the 777 got caught, d
44 KC135TopBoom : I agree, that is the cheapest option, and the KC-135R has among the highest MCR in the USAF, going between 88% and 92%. The printing of money will ev
45 Post contains links ArniePie : Looks like John Mc Cain is putting some big questionmarks again at the way the DoD has established its criteria to select the new tanker. Seems like t
46 Tommytoyz : Anyone claiming that new tankers are cheaper than simply keeping and re-engineing the existing tankers, better be able to show that calculation. I fi
47 Wingman : I still don't get all this silly arguing. France, Germany and Spain are buying European made planes for their transport needs just as the US should bu
48 ThePointblank : Metal corrosion and sourcing spare parts will become an issue in the future. Aluminum does corrode over time being exposed to various conditions, and
49 Post contains links Tommytoyz : You make my case that new tankers are far far more expensive, even ignoring the fact that your numbers do not reflect total acquisition costs. Your c
50 Tommytoyz : The existing fleet of KC-135s could also be improved with added winglets and wing mounted drogue hoses. This is still far cheaper than new built aircr
51 Cargotanker : I agree. Name another country out there that has competitions for military aircraft when that same country is making an entry in its own competition.
52 RedFlyer : Don't forget the logistical costs that are already paid for in the form of infrastructure. I also know the Air Force bought up a lot of old 707's tha
53 ArniePie : With all due respect but you're turning things around a bit with this line of reasoning. The EF, Rafale and A400M where all completely new products d
54 Post contains links Scbriml : Well, despite the claims (or is it wishes?) of some that the A330MRTT is in "trouble", it seems that testing continues apace. http://www.marketwire.co
55 Cargotanker : I figured I'd get a response, but I do stand by my argument. I could be wrong, but here's my challenge: Name a European country that has purchased a
56 Scbriml : Great Britain. Long history of indigenous military production from gliders through to large transports. Never been afraid to ditch or ignore a local/
57 Wingman : But add in all economic spending on that "2-way" street and you that the US simply buys billions upon billions of dollars more from Europe every year
58 Scbriml : Not Jaguars since 2007. Tornados yes, and of course, Typhoons just starting their careers. Hasn't stopped us buying F-35s. Or C-17s. Or Apaches. Or m
59 ArniePie : Cargotanker, I understand your line of reasoning but the comparison between the US and individual EU countries ,which are all dwarfed on a 1 to 1 bas
60 KC135TopBoom : Yes, I have heard the USAF complain about the corrosion repair expense on the KC-135. But, they are trying to justify getting a new airplane. Have yo
61 ArniePie : And the F16, F15, F22, JSF, and many many others where all ordered by the US DoD without allowing any competition from non US companies, so what's yo
62 Post contains links Zeke : The RAND report looked at that, this was their conclusion from http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/tanker_rand.pdf 2013 seems to be a common t
63 Par13del : That free market that you think is not there may explain why the EU has such a massive trade surplus with the US, at this rate only protectionism may
64 Tommytoyz : It is not I who have made any assumptions, but the GAO in their report. In any case, you do not know what the assumptions are unless you read the rep
65 Tommytoyz : Another head fake assumption in the RAND report is the statement that future tankers will be more expensive. This would certainly not be the case if i
66 XT6Wagon : Even when you have all the design specs, making one off parts is hardly cheap. I've long thought a re-engine program for the KC-135 is the way to go.
67 Cargotanker : The point I was trying to make. Neither can I.
68 RedFlyer : That still doesn't diminish my argument, which was that making parts for several hundred airplanes would be cost-effective from a production line sta
69 KC135TopBoom : When the F-14 and F-15 were being looked at, they were to replace the F-4, and there was no good European alternative. The same goes for the F-16, bu
70 Rheinwaldner : Are you two thi same person? At times the US did select foreign aicrafts even bombers (Canberra). Why skip a foreign solution if it is better than th
71 RedFlyer : It's not the U.S. per se, it is the politicians who scramble for votes and their own political ambitions, especially in tough economic times, that sa
72 Acheron : Maybe the Europeans learned from the stunt the US tried to pull with Germany and the F-104. Nonetheless, the US keeps screwing with some EU countries
73 Tarheelwings : I know this is off topic but I have to challenge this statement: if the US as a government and as a society didn't truly believe in the global econom
74 GPHOTO : I'm beginning to wonder if it would have been a good idea just to dust off the old KC-135 plans and restart an updated production - and I'm only half
75 XT6Wagon : You forget its NOT better for the USAF's tanker needs. The KC30 is far too large, costs more, and would provide LESS usable tankers where needed than
76 KC135TopBoom : There is only one NB airplane that COULD reenter production that also COULD match the capability of the KC-135. THat would be a modified version of t
77 Post contains links and images Zeke : I had read the GAO report some time back, it is not new, it has been around for a long time. It was based upon a KC-135 fleet of 543 aircraft, and fl
78 Tommytoyz : Provide this report. It probably includes all operational and maintenance costs. And you would have to compare that to the cost for the new built ove
79 Tommytoyz : Let me modify that question to get more accurate: Let's compare costs with comparable mission capabilities. Newer tankers are more capable so fewer c
80 Zeke : How about we start with you backing up your "facts" first. I will gladly supply the links to the IG (about 80 billion) and another GAO report (over 1
81 ArniePie : Probably it's just me but I fail to see how the trade surplus the EU has with the US has anything to do with the defence market whe're talking about
82 Wingman : And yet when we borrow all that money and give it to you and EADS you don't seem all that bothered. In fact you seem to demand it in the name of "free
83 ArniePie : Surprisingly maybe , but I don't object to that, ultimately it is a choice that every country can make for itself, just do it in advance and don't st
84 Par13del : I was going to ask the questions but Tarheelwings asked it better than me below, so all I can say is "what he says". It has everything to do with you
85 Tommytoyz : The B-737-800 and 900 series comes close to the KC-135R lift capabilities judging from empty weight and gross weights. There is still a 15% difference
86 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : You have to remember the 1999 cost analysis of $76B also assumed that all KC-135s would fly until 2040. That is clearly not the case any more. But, y
87 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Zeke, The reason there are plenty of preserved KC-135s stored in the desert on inactive flying status, is because the US Congress repeatedly prohibit
88 Astuteman : Didn't say it did, and that wasn't my point. Did the WTO find that any of the subsidies found to be "illegal" applied directly to the A330? My unders
89 KC135TopBoom : I haven't scene it yet, but the interium report is mostly about the A-380, some info on the A-340, and something like a possible 5.6B Euro subsidy to
90 Post contains links Zeke : According to the latest GAO report I have seen, dated July this year [1] was an estimate that operating the KC-135 from 2001 to 2040 would cost 103 b
91 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Do you have a link to that report? According to the GAO, when they upheld Boeing's protest last year, the USAF estimated the MPLCC at; "The Air Force
92 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Zeke, Please link to the 2009 GAO report, thanks. DoD report (2009): "The overall annual maintenance will rise from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 t
93 ArniePie : Maybe I phrased things too broadly in my original replies or maybe you're reading things I haven't actually said but we where talking exclusively abo
94 Post contains links and images Keesje : Absolutely not. The times between checks, removal rates and redundancy of new generation digital aircraft like A330 and B777 are so much better then
95 Tommytoyz : Source please. I at least made an attempt to get a figure and used one an analyst came up with. What is your figure then per hour of operation and wh
96 Tommytoyz : It's telling that only 1% of cargo carrying capacity of the tankers, KC-10 included, have been utilized. It is far more expensive to use tankers for
97 ArniePie : To help a complete layman in the tanker-plane business, Just a quick question to clarify all these calculations but just how many hours are the tanker
98 Tommytoyz : Since the KC-135 operating figure is well know, I won't change that. So let's assume you are correct and KC-30 costs 30% less per hour to operate than
99 Tommytoyz : C-17s and C-5 are mainly used (as they should) for out sized cargo or to land on runways others can't or wont. Whatever a KC-30 can do, a civilian ca
100 Keesje : Tommy I'm in no way ignoring your work to compare the different options. I used to work for an airline that operate(d) sizeable fleet of 767, A330, 7
101 Post contains links Zeke : My apologies, CRS, not GAO, the link is the same as above, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf Not disputing that at all. One would need to ta
102 Post contains links Tommytoyz : I agree with you. The number I used for both are derived from sources that I think are reliable. Especially the KC-135 figures are very well known, a
103 Par13del : Here's a question which to me goes to playing with the numbers. To make the A330 more "competitive" with the 787 Airbus has found a way to reduce / l
104 Tommytoyz : However, this is only for 179 units and the acquisition costs need to be included. Using the USAF figures, 353 units will cost $212 Billion as the KC
105 Keesje : The USAF does. It's part of the mandatory requirements fro the KC-X. I think the big question is: were / are the KC135s used seldom for cargo / passe
106 Tommytoyz : We can also do this in calculation in reverse. 179 KC-30 tankers will relieve 290 KC-135Rs. Based on the $103 Billion number for keeping the entire K
107 Tommytoyz : It's not like we have suffered to date with the capability of the KC-10, which has great cargo capabilities of which we operate 59, but is rarely use
108 Stitch : But that is for commercial operators. Would the USAF adopt commercial A330 or 767 maintenance intervals? And if not, how would that affect the calcul
109 JarheadK5 : No, those missions are not rare in the KC-10. Why? Because we can, and the KC-135 can't. It's what the KC-10 was designed and built for. Only 59. Peo
110 Post contains links and images Zeke : MPLCC includes development, production, operating, and maintenance costs. from http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf The USAF calculated tha
111 Tommytoyz : Zeke, such a study from the government was never made public. But the opposite is also true. There is no government report showing new tankers are ch
112 Tommytoyz : Zeke, The KC-135s are so much cheaper you can throw all kinds of upgrade expenses at them and still come out way ahead. Let's the 85 KC-135E will cost
113 Tommytoyz : oops that's totally wrong. Made a mistake, going too fast. The GAO figure (inflation adjusted by you) of $125.29 for 503 KC-135s = $83 Billion for 34
114 ZANL188 : Quick rewrite the history books to accomodate this twisting of the facts!! C-141s didn't get a refueling capability until they were stretched to B mo
115 Cargotanker : KC-10s do very few cargo missions today. I think that has a lot to do with an incredibly high deployment rate to OEF/OIF. Currently at homestation ba
116 Par13del : Is the re-engine program for the KC-135 being thrown into the mix on the GAO report as including the KC-135 in the RFP or as an alternative to the RF
117 Post contains links and images Zeke : So you finally admit you just made the statement up .... I have referred to it above, the first would have been the KC-135 Extended Service Life Stud
118 Astuteman : It begs the question why your government has spent a goodly number of years and countless $m running a replacement programme Rgds
119 Stitch : They're dancing to the tune played by the lobbyists.
120 KC135TopBoom : Keesje, you seem to have forgotten the KC-135R/T is now a "digital aircraft", too. Pacer Craig brought the KC-135 into the 21st Century, and eliminat
121 Post contains links Cargotanker : Incorrect. Two squadrons are continuously in theater, along with dozens of aircraft transiting from German fields directly into OEF/OIF. I have a lin
122 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Reread where I got my data from. I made nothing up. I came to this discussion knowing very little and so I went over the data from the GAO, statement
123 XT6Wagon : and I would question that charts accuracy. Without a written statement as to its assumptions and what all, its kinda funny looking. Like they expect
124 Post contains links and images Zeke : Pacer CRAIG uses off the shelf avionics, and does not result in an a fully integrated system, "Technology like Pacer CRAG has been used in the civili
125 Post contains links Tommytoyz : You know Zeke, you write a very long winded post that certainly took you a lot of your time when you could have very easily and quickly proven your po
126 Tommytoyz : Zeke, you said: "I wasn’t the one making the statement of fact saying a KC-135E re-engine project would be cheaper than replacement them." But you d
127 EPA001 : That is highly unlikely. As far as I know the A330 got her latest avionics update some time after the introduction of the A340-500/600 (which were in
128 Post contains links Tommytoyz : "Some observers express about potential problems that may arise in flying 50- to 80-year-old tankers that could possibly ground the entire KC-135 flee
129 Keesje : Dang what a mountain of info. Folks have been spending the sunday afternoon looking for tanker details. Yes, jarhead, link your logbook Check, I stand
130 KC135TopBoom : You have to take into account that Gen. Lichte (AMC Commander) is a big KC-30 supporter, and he wants it to replace the KC-135. The General will be r
131 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Nor did you mention the KC-135R-Block 30 configueration. IIRC, all of the KC-135R PACER CRAIG airplanes have been upgraded to the Block 30. http://ww
132 Tommytoyz : I find this discussion very illuminating. It shows the massive waste some are willing to foist onto the US taxpayer for their own personal gain or sim
133 Post contains links Tommytoyz : One last thing, how about those NW DC-9s? They must be about the same age and utilized far more than KC-135s - more hours and more cycles by a very wi
134 KC135TopBoom : Absolutely correct. The KC-135 is no more likely to face a fleet wide grounding than any other type, which I might add would include new build KC-30s
135 JarheadK5 : Sorry, I'm not linking my aircrew currencies (not that I could, anyway). You're just gonna have to take my word as a current and qualified KC-10 boom
136 Zeke : I did show my calculations above. The USAF has no plans to operate the KC-135 past 2040 that I am aware of, that is why I did the KC-30 numbers to 20
137 Cargotanker : Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130): You have to take into account that Gen. Lichte (AMC Commander) is a big KC-30 supporter, and he wants it to replace
138 Keesje : I remeber during the process everybody was enthousiatic about the procedures, openess and proffesionalism of the tanker selection. Only after a choic
139 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Well, since the first KC-X will not be mission capable until 2015 or 2016 (crews trained, maintenance trained), That brings the 40 year expected life
140 RedFlyer : I would respectfully suggest that what you're remembering is a little revisionist in nature and reflects only your own perceptions. There were plenty
141 EPA001 : But that is a bit of a chicken and egg story. The original requirements were drawn up first with only a B767 in mind, they were coming of the infamou
142 KC135TopBoom : Not true, the 2007 RFP had some of the 2002 requirments, but it also had many others that were update or not part of the 2002 deal. What NG protested
143 Ken777 : It's cheaper to run a RFP/Replacement Program than it is to actually buy new tankers. In our current financial state I think we need to continue to r
144 Post contains images Zeke : I have not seen any USAF suggestion that the KC-X life is just 40 years, where did you get that from ? You were not on active duty then while at the
145 Tommytoyz : I have my ins with a few US Senators and/or their staffs, but only as it pertains to some Wall Street market manipulation and systemic risk items. IF
146 Tommytoyz : Venus6971: "When doing a Tanker dependent ops such as a Desert Storm or Eldorado canyon when planning you have take into account some acft will break,
147 Tommytoyz : As to the doubts that the costs of keeping and operating 340 KC-135s through 2040 is cheaper than acquiring 179 New tankers, I ask anyone to come forw
148 Keesje : Commercial A330 usually operated on component guarantees from the suppliers for the first 8 yrs ( ~30.000 hrs) is that calculated in?
149 Post contains links Tommytoyz : I really do not know how this figure is arrived at. These are numbers the USAF would pay. I am merely quoting the official number the GAO and others
150 Post contains links Tommytoyz : I just got wind of something: The costs are far worse for new tankers than even I thought. The reason is because the "Most Probable Life Cycle Cost" (
151 Tommytoyz : typo, should read 340 KC-135s not 240 Kc-135s. 340 KC-135s kept operating over 40 more years: $85 billion (USAF numbers 2008 number) 179 KC-30s acqui
152 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : "The Boeing Co. received a major boost August 1, 2008 from a House subcommittee, which moved to impose tight restrictions on the Pentagon as it seeks
153 Post contains links Tommytoyz : KC135TopBomm, Thanks for confirming that the cost figures given for the new tankers is only over a 25 year span, something I am surprised Zeke did no
154 Post contains links Zeke : " target=_blank>http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...e.htm The time a MPLCC is taken over is not necessarily the same as the anticipated service li
155 KC135TopBoom : Not a problem, thank you for doing the math work. Perhaps. But the way I see it the USAF could save a lot of money and time by fully canceling KC-X a
156 Post contains links Tommytoyz : "The overall annual maintenance will rise from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $3 billion in 2040, according to the KC-135 Economic Service Life S
157 Tommytoyz : That's a no brainer, according to their own data. Even if the do a bunch of upgrades to the KC-135 fleet, still cheaper by far.
158 Zeke : The result would be an aircraft that is not as capable as the KC-X then, and by the USAFs own comments I quoted in reply 154, very few of the remaini
159 Tommytoyz : Strong statement in fact or personal opinion? Care to elaborate? The cost for the KC-135 also includes SDD and acquisition costs. Zero is a number. K
160 Ken777 : Why would Boeing release proprietary information that would only be to the benefit of their competition? Not required, even if it was desired by Airb
161 Keesje : - I think in a KC135 - KC-X comparison the rest value of both fleets should be taken into account. - New aircraft tend to have very low component / en
162 Zeke : They already freely relesed the information to the USAF/GAO, it is now in my view the goverments information. Just like it was the goverment that pas
163 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : I agree. It seems US protectionism is at least not consistent. Regarding the KC-X I found the following document. Written by someone from USAF it exp
164 Lumberton : You do know this "report" was a paper written by a student, don't you? This is NOT policy. Meanwhile, let it speak for itself....
165 Rheinwaldner : Quick but cheap answer. First there are a lot of quotes from other USAF top brass (generals..). They would provide insight even if a three-year-old w
166 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : First, if the USAF delays a tanker replacement program until the KC-Y program, the A-330 will also be long out of production, not to mention the A-33
167 Astuteman : I'm curious. Why haven't you mentioned the KC767 price? Will you be equally appalled if a 767 purchase goes ahead? Rgds
168 Tommytoyz : It is already taken into account, because the KC-30 is valued at 1.90 times a KC-135R. The KC-30 is clearly a very productive aircraft in many ways.
169 Tommytoyz : Yes. Both are about equally bad - on a financial basis. The FEV costs for both are almost identical, so KC-30 and KC-767 is interchangeable in my pos
170 Post contains links Zeke : How can you say that for certainty ? The A330 had one of its best sales year ever last year, I think I remember reading at one stage it was even outs
171 Tommytoyz : KC-135Rs can easily be modified to have multi point refueling as in two hose units on the wings, in addition to the boom. In fact, I think 40 KC-135R
172 JarheadK5 : 40 KC-135s have been modified for MPRS (the wing pod hoses). The AF has 20 MPRS kits to use on those 40 airframes.
173 Post contains links Zeke : That was my understanding as well, I put the question marks against the numbers above in-case there were developments that I was not aware of. Additi
174 Tommytoyz : That would mean less than $3 billion to upgrade 503 Kc-135s. Drop in the bucket compared to the cost of new tankers.
175 Tommytoyz : upgrading 340 KC-135s with twin hoses would cost $1.9 billion and put 780 hoses airborne 179 KC-X would cost much more but only put 537 hoses airborn
176 Moose135 : But operationally, you're never going to have three receivers plugged in to drogues at the same time, so two vs. three is a moot point.
177 Post contains images Zeke : The centerline hose capability has little to do with refueling 3 receivers at a time, more to do with aircraft that do not have the clearance for ref
178 Tommytoyz : And these aircraft are??
179 Post contains images Keesje : Have you included the new capable trasport capabilities the KC-X has over the KC135 in your calculations. Alternative transports should be bought / h
180 Astuteman : Appreciate the response Tommytoyz. I'm not a fan of inconsistently applied arguments. Consistently applied is preferred, (even if I don't necessarily
181 Par13del : Does get lost in the shuffle, makes you wonder how the US Air Force can get both to have a similar number in "anything". Well the US congress is stil
182 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/...4.htm I was just getting those numbers for you, Astuteman. As you can see, the numbers for the
183 JarheadK5 : In the USAF tanker world, there are currently NO receiver aircraft, US or foreign, with restrictions on which hose they can refuel from.
184 Tommytoyz : The USAF and GAO all agreed that 1 KC-30 is equivalent to 1.90 KC-135Rs in mission capability. These are not my numbers. Thanks JarheadK5, for pointi
185 Post contains links Tommytoyz : "CV-22s can launch from extended ranges, aerial refuel with KC-135s," http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/tilttimes/10-27-00.pdf The Osprey'
186 ThePointblank : Ah, but the KC-135 is essentially a flying fuel tank, especially in the belly, while the KC-767 and the KC-30 aren't. Therefore, either the KC-30 or
187 Zeke : Yes very ironic, where are the same people advocating to re-engine the C-141 (same generation as the KC-145) ... capability and effectiveness is not
188 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I doubt it, even though the KC-135 has been flying and completing front line combat missions nearly twice as long as EADS/Airbus has been around. The
189 F27Friendship : The companies that merged into EADS have been around quite a while...[Edited 2009-11-21 17:43:07 by srbmod]
190 JarheadK5 : KC-10 centerline drogue airspeed range is 200-280KIAS; WARP airspeed range is 230-300KIAS. I was incorrect - I should've gone to the book before I ma
191 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Airbus formerly began in December 1970, talks about forming the "company" began in 1967; Formation of Airbus Industrie Airbus A300, the first aircraf
192 Zeke : Thanks for picking it up, I had the correct numbers later in the post ("KC-135 MPRS minimum refuel speed is 220 kt (230 on the KC-10), the BDA (KC-13
193 JarheadK5 : There is a photo out there of a V-22 in contact with a -135 BDA. I've seen it... I just don't remember what website I was on, and Google Images is fa
194 Zeke : I understand that, the only clearance messages I am aware of for the MV-22/CV-22 are KC-130 J - 272013Z MAR 08, KC-130 F/R/T - 272013Z MAR 08, MC-130
195 F27Friendship : You forgot the Dutch government there : Fokker-VFW 7% The "Nederlandsche Vliegtuigenfabriek" which became Fokker NV, which was absorbed into DASA whi
196 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : As far as I can tell, ITAF KC-767A #4 entered the Boeing IDS mod facility this past summer, after being returned from Italy. It first had to be asses
197 F27Friendship : No they were not. They restarted in 1968, Forming Messerschmitt-Bolkow after which they acquired Blohm&Voss becomming MBB, which was acuired by Daiml
198 KC135TopBoom : They are all long gone, just like US companies like MD, Hughs, and North American were absorbed by Boeing, and Lockheed absorbed Martin and GD (aircr
199 Zeke : So long as we have cleared up that no new KC-767s are to be built, Boeing is just getting the late airframes to do what they were promised to do. The
200 Astuteman : ????? They built the BR710 and BR715 in collaboration with RR in the '90's...... They are now part of RR Deuthchland, and the engines roll off the li
201 F27Friendship : what do you mean gone... The factories and sites are still there as well as the people who now work for EADS but used to be on the payroll of those h
202 KC135TopBoom : That is pretty close to what I said. I had never flown a KC-135 equipped with MPRS. That would be an extra qualification for the Boom Operator and Ta
203 Zeke : I was quoting current USAF procedure. I have not seen the new tilt rotor procedures promulgated by the USAF yet, just fixed wing and rotary wing. Unt
204 JarheadK5 : The six EC-130Js have UARRSI, and their AR speed is about 10-15kts faster than the EC-130E/H.
205 STT757 : Currently the Air Force tanker fleet (not including SAR C-130s) consist of two aircraft, the KC-10 and the KC-135R/T. Why not move from the KC-10 and
206 Post contains links and images Zeke : Correct, however the USAF EC-130 is not a KC-130, it cannot refuel from a KC-135 and then refuel a V-22 for deployment.
207 KC135TopBoom : Thanks for the update, JarheadK5. I doubt the KC-30 could replace the KC-10. The -10 carries more cargo and fuel than the -30 does. How is the USAF t
208 Tommytoyz : Why not? Because it is not affordable. Who is going to pay for such a thing?
209 Keesje : Well, I think that's where you, KC135TopBoom, and STT757 come in
210 KC135TopBoom : Well, if you are asking me to write the check, I only have one available. Looks like a very big order for the re-engined KC-135E, and I'll contract B
211 ThePointblank : Not by much; the KC-10 can carry 160,200 kg of fuel, the KC-30 can carry 111,000 kg of fuel. Mind you, the KC-10 has additional fuel tanks in the low
212 JarheadK5 : I'm well aware of that, and it wasn't my point. I was letting KC135TopBoom know that there are operational J-model 130s, with UARRSIs, in the USAF fl
213 Cargotanker : Not by much? 160.2 is almost 50% greater than 111. Also, MTOW for the A330MRTT is listed as 514K lbs. Empty weight is 275.6K lbs. The difference of 2
214 Post contains images Zeke : It also burns greater than 50% more fuel per hour. The gradient of this fuel offload vs range line is an indication of the fuel efficiency of the tan
215 Rheinwaldner : I still would prefer you to adress the points he makes. I can't spot many weak points in his arguments. Why do some people argue that KC-X is not req
216 Post contains links and images Zeke : Further testing progress .... from http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/1024..._fuel_to_two_fighter_aircraft.html of interest was the comment that "refueli
217 KC135TopBoom : You would think so. Your chart shows a KC-10 offload ability of 250,000 lbs at 1000 nm and 200,000 lbs at 2000 nm, both far greater than the KC-30 ca
218 Post contains images Zeke : Thanks for picking that up, that diagram seems to overestimate the KC-135/KC-10 ability, USAF AFPAM 10-1403 "AIR MOBILITY PLANNING FACTORS" has the f
219 Tommytoyz : 1. You bring up the old canard of doubt on maintainability and durability of the KC-135. I have quoted and linked documents that puts that fallacy to
220 Tommytoyz : Here is what the USAF has to say as to why the KC-X is "needed" "The Air Force presently operates a nearly 50-year old fleet of KC-135 aerial refuelin
221 Par13del : Sounds like a better KC-10 replacement than a KC-135, something folks in the last RFP mentioned. Well they do operate the B-52's so talking too much
222 KC135TopBoom : Unless the KC-135s and KC-10 had a drastic growth on the basic operating weights, those numbers are grossly off. The basic weight of the KC-135E is a
223 JarheadK5 : Not only are they capable of dumping fuel, it's a normal procedure for Hornets/Rhinos operating off the boat to dump down to their "max trap weight"
224 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : Tommytoyz: I studied your calculation a little more. Nr. 1 problem IMO is your wrong annual maintenace cost for KC-135: Zeke showed that within a deca
225 Tommytoyz : to $5.1 billion (2003 dollars) in fiscal year 2017: Let's do it: $5.1 billion to operate a full fleet of 538 KC-135 (Es and Rs). 538 is the number us
226 Post contains links Zeke : This is such a intellectually dishonest post. You have taken the intellectually dishonest stance that my questioning of your so called "facts" means
227 Tommytoyz : You have claimed the KC-X is cheaper. If you are now saying you have changed your mind, that is different. So what are you claiming now? Please clari
228 Post contains links Tommytoyz : "Some observers express about potential problems that may arise in flying 50- to 80-year-old tankers that could possibly ground the entire KC-135 flee
229 Post contains links Zeke : Since you claim to not to be able to comprehend what I have already written regarding the same in the above text in this thread, I fail see how reite
230 Post contains links Tommytoyz : That is not the position you were asked to clarify and clearly state. Why not just answer the question put to you? In any case Zeke, your position is
231 Post contains links Tommytoyz : If you are saying I did not use the terms correctly, then neither did anyone else (except you of course). Here is but one example: "Northrop's air mo
232 Zeke : The KC-135 does not meet the KC-X requirements, you have provided no analysis to cost the MPLCC cost of the KC-135 to meet the same standard, it is a
233 Rheinwaldner : This source clearly falls flat regarding standards raised by yourself: You make yourself a fool if you easily dismiss sources that contradict your vi
234 Post contains links Tommytoyz : You have claimed 1) there is a report showing KC-X would be cheaper on this basis and 2) that you have linked to this report "above". You have not. Wh
235 Par13del : I still do not understand why it has to meet them, this is the a/c and capability they currently have and they are looking to either replace it - RFP
236 Tommytoyz : " target=_blank>http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/...9.pdf If hair splitting would arrive us at a different result, then hair splitting would make
237 KC135TopBoom : What is right for the warfighter is giving them an airplane they have a reasonable chance of suceeding with on the mission. We already knbow the KC-1
238 Rheinwaldner : The FEV does not adress all the requirements from the KC-X RFP. That means that there is an advantage of the KC-X beyond the FEV comparison. The KC-X
239 Keesje : At the end of such a 25 yr period you either have 80 yr kc135s without value that need replacement urgently, or a bunch of low hour KC-X aircraft abou
240 Rheinwaldner : Of course! I didn't want to overload my post but there are some serious concerns: - Anyone step forward and plan with reasonable confidence the compl
241 Post contains images Zeke : Well I suggest you reread the posts, I have wasted enough time reiterating what I have already said. The KC-135 does not meet the current USAF requir
242 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Of course it does. How else do you think the USAF calculated FEV in the KC-X competition? You may be of the opinion that it is a wrong value, however
243 Tommytoyz : Which post? There is no such post.
244 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Zeke says: However, GAO says (2007): "a fleet effectiveness value of 1.0 would be equal in effectiveness to the KC-135R" http://leehamnews.files.wordp
245 KC135TopBoom : Yes, corrosion does start form day one of the assembled airplane, if not earlier (depending on where the parts were made, shipped to final assembly,
246 Tommytoyz : Military aircraft, in general, do not ever have any rest value, except for scarp value. For instance, what was the rest value of the 15 year old B-1'
247 Tommytoyz : If the KC-Xs were efficient and cheap enough to operate, they could save more money over the remaining life of the KC-135s. If that were the case, it
248 Zeke : The IFARA analysis is based up meeting the requirements of the USAF 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study. All vendors aircraft that meet all the KC-X man
249 Astuteman : You correctly point out that this nonsensical debate doesn't bring you to the same end-point in each case. There IS a valid reason the KC-X bid is go
250 ThePointblank : Indeed, for example, Canada is in the middle of a total fleet collapse with the C-130 fleet... too many hours, too old airplanes. The C-130E fleet is
251 KC135TopBoom : The USAF has not completed an air refueling study since 2001. One was due in 2004, but it was never completed. Instead, the USAF is relying on the 20
252 Post contains images Zeke : Not true, both TRS-05, and TRS-08, both were done before the end of 2005, and the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS-05) which the KC-X IFARA is based
253 ZANL188 : Finding a flyable 377 would be a stretch I think, unless your counting the heavily modified Guppies.
254 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : No sir, you are wrong, again. From the very same SOD briefing you sited, on page #5 (page #6 in the link); "The KC-X mission is built on the same war
255 Post contains links Tommytoyz : GAO says (2007): "a fleet effectiveness value of 1.0 would be equal in effectiveness to the KC-135R" http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...344__boein
256 Tommytoyz : Zeke, I assume you still maintain that the KC-X would be cheaper over 25 years than the KC-135R on a FEV equivalency basis. Yet you have failed to sho
257 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The TRS-05 is the GAO/USAF tanker report from 2001, released in June 2003. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03938t.pdf Here is the update to TRS-05, whi
258 Post contains links Tommytoyz : I concur. If true, this would be the second non existent report that Zeke is referring to in hos posts. He has: 1. Erroneously stated that the KC-135
259 Post contains links and images Zeke : Do you actually read what you copy and paste ? and you said in reply ... That would be this one with the notes saying And yet you say .... That slide
260 Tommytoyz : The words "equivalents" and "capability" are not even contained in the FEV definition quoted. Besides, those are not even my words. Apparently, the p
261 Tommytoyz : Which one is it Zeke? Was a "TRS-08" done in 2005 or is it ongoing. Both can not be true. I am going to stop pointing out all of your inconsistencies
262 EPA001 : For someone who is not reading very well, and has problems understanding what to read and how to read it, even when proven wrong multiple times by Ze
263 Post contains links Zeke : No kidding, the quote is taken out of context, I posted the full context of the FEV above. The GAO used it in the context of the KC-X solicitation wh
264 KC135TopBoom : The C-17 had its highest MCR of 96% in the Mar-Jun 1999 (FY-1999-Q3). At that time there were about 100 C-17s in the USAF inventory and the only opst
265 Post contains links Tommytoyz : GAO says (2007): "a fleet effectiveness value of 1.0 would be equal in effectiveness to the KC-135R" http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...344__boein
266 KC135TopBoom : Well, now that some of us have taken pot shots at each other can we now get back on topic? The topic is the USAF KC-X 2009 compitition. My first choic
267 Tommytoyz : No you did not, what you posted was something entirely different. Different source and talking about a different definition altogether as well. You a
268 Tommytoyz : I'll second that. Someone has to make a strategic case for KC-X tankers. Financially they make no sense. So is there a strategic reasons? In all the
269 KC135TopBoom : Warfighter effectiveness means the actual effectiveness of actual missions, and not only includes the airplane type involved, but how well the crew u
270 ThePointblank : I would probably argue that the USAF is seeing the mission of the tanker fleet to be evolving; more roles are being added on that the current fleet,
271 Keesje : IMO right now is not important. We are talking about a >50 yr program. I think the USAF has clearly voices, specified and confirmed the the KC-X capa
272 KC135TopBoom : the current KC-135 and KC-10 fleet is already a multi-mission fleet, doing refueling (strategic and tactical), limited airlift/aeromedical evac, smar
273 Rheinwaldner : You surely agree that the KC-X requirements partly exceed the features offered by the KC-135? Now how many KC-135's do you need to do some of those K
274 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Now you're talking sense! So let's start there. 1. What job is the KC-X capable of that even an infinite number of KC-135s can not? 2. If you can fin
275 KC135TopBoom : To do the primary mission? It would be 1:1. The success of the refueling mission is not the amount of fuel you ahve airborne, it is the number of use
276 ThePointblank : I think they are looking for more flow rate with the boom, more drogues in the air without a major performance penalty, and more cargo and passenger
277 Rheinwaldner : I am shocked that over 200 posts you calculate scenarios and don't have answers to these questions! I think the USAF has the answers to these questio
278 Burkhard : One thing I do not get. If the tanker is planned just to be used as a tanker and nothing else, why does nobody discuss a solution based on the B739ER,
279 Post contains links and images Zeke : No, one is an assessment by a vendor prior to knowing how the USAF will treat trade space, the other is a USAF calculation. Just like all the other t
280 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The USAF has a wish list as long as anyone else's. That does not mean they will get it. Boom flow rates of the KC-135 and KC-10 fit the mission requi
281 Tommytoyz : 1. Yes, the source you quoted is from a DRFP briefing 2. The passage you quoted is about "Warfighting effectiveness" 3. The passage you quoted is not
282 KC135TopBoom : Sinceall the KC-135Es are "retired", no he does not have a point.
283 ThePointblank : I think what I am getting at is that the USAF is looking to do things differently with KC-X compared with the existing fleet. What we are doing with
284 Post contains images Zeke : The USAF defines the specification, it is not a "wish list". The KC-X boom flow rate is specified the same as the KC-10, which is greater than the KC
285 Par13del : If the primary driving factor in this RFP is an off the shelf product, exactly how many requirements can they actually have before the get into the r
286 Post contains links Tommytoyz : He didn't say or suggest that, you are inferring something that was not expressed. Read more carefully. I would also think it would be better if you
287 Rheinwaldner : Because replacement takes so long anyway. That is accepted and correct. A tanker will always be used primarily as tanker. But this premise is not hur
288 Post contains links ArabAirX : Of relevance: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ews/AUSJSF120209.xml&headline=Will Australian JSF Buy Avoid Delays? "Also under scrutiny is the A
289 Lumberton : Thanks for the link, ArabAirX. So who do we believe, Airbus or the audit office?
290 Zeke : Have you been following the whole thread, what does he say in the bottom paragraph of reply 251 ? Are you going to blame that on wine and women as we
291 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Then the USAF must define those missions, so both OEMs can provide that capability. Also, who is to say the KC-10 or KC-135 are incapable of performi
292 Post contains links Tommytoyz : That is not the same as: You are interpreting the statement more broadly than what it clearly says. On purpose I suppose. OK, whatever. You also clai
293 Zeke : Yes, and that is exactly what the document I referenced above indicated, the update to TRS-05 was started in 2004 to be completed in 2005. TRS-05 was
294 NorCal : The KC-135s are bought and paid for, there is no acquisition cost. It's called a sunk cost, it's over and done with.
295 Post contains links Tommytoyz : Prove it. I would love to read those reports, but they do not exist. I can not read what does not exist. But you did make those claims, so I am not p
296 XT6Wagon : dreadfully funny that he has argued the exactly that for the A380 for years, yet suddenly it doesn't apply here.
297 CMB56 : Fellow A.net contributors, hello this is my first posting after several years reading with great interest the many topics in both civil and military f
298 Par13del : They have all been mentioned before, but welcome to the tanker threads, join in. Years ago flights would be delayed because of fluid leaks, now we ha
299 NorCal : Technically speaking the US hasn't had any money in the bank since the 1800s since we've been running defecits for nearly our entire history, but tha
300 Rheinwaldner : It seems they are secret. Why so grouchy if it is clear that it can't be prooved? Can you imagine the USAF to have some classified information? If ye
301 Par13del : 1. The same US Air Force that initially gave the lease to Boeing because the KC-135's were ready to fall out of the sky, how many Air Force personnel
302 Rheinwaldner : It is as bad as I would not have expected! And you guys would do a so much better job! You KC-135 fans should found private security tankers services
303 Par13del : Me personally, for an industrial country like the US, I actually support them getting a local product with the most bang for the country, which means
304 Tommytoyz : If they are secret, how does Zeke know about them? In any case, what I have seen is that perhaps the contents of the reports themselves are redacted,
305 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Then how do you have it? Where did you get it? BTW, TRS-05 and MCS-05 are in the public domain, both are on the internet and easily googled. The USAF
306 Post contains links Scbriml : Given the length of this thread and the depths to which the "discussion" has descended, there seems little point in leaving this one open. There is an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2 posted Fri Sep 5 2008 03:40:43 by Scbriml
2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2 posted Fri Oct 24 2008 19:23:49 by TropicBird
2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals posted Sat Sep 13 2008 05:59:21 by Keesje
KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled! posted Wed Sep 10 2008 06:40:05 by Observer
KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008 posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:23:34 by Tugger
Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3. posted Tue Mar 4 2008 06:37:46 by WINGS
Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2. posted Sat Mar 1 2008 02:54:32 by Srbmod
Usaf Invites KC-X Tanker Bidders To The Table posted Wed Nov 21 2007 06:19:13 by Zeke
KC-X Tanker Project Approved posted Sun Jul 9 2006 22:04:24 by 747400sp
Multinational Exercise Salitre II - Chile 2009 posted Mon Oct 19 2009 14:38:56 by Gonzalo