Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released  
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Posted (4 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15545 times:

Following recent press reports as discussed in KC-X RFP To Be Released Wed. 24 Feb. (by KC135TopBoom Feb 23 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#47 the USAF has finally released the 2010 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program RFP.

The draft for the RFP was discussed on this thread 2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program (by Zeke Sep 25 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

As usual the RFP is published on the FBO website, it is dated Feb 24, 2010.

https://www.fbo.gov/notices/e65e1ab7f225d6454f5fa8a10556cbfa

for comparison, the DRFP is still available on the FBO website

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/ASC/FA8625-10-R-6600-SpecialNotice/listing.html

Some obsevations on the changes in the RFP from the DRFP.

The USAF have included the option of purchasing the engines and airframes separately

The USAF will be supplying LAIRCM equipment, the vendors will need to make allowances to install the system.

MILCON

MILCON is now more defined, the bases which will looked out now have airport diagrams depicting which parts of the airports will be included in the MILCON assessment. The number of aircraft at each base has also been given.

Altus (8 A/C)
Grand Forks (12 A/C)
Fairchild (36 A/C)
MacDill (24 A/C)
Seymour-Johnson (12 A/C)
Scott (12 A/C)
Kadena (12 A/C)
Pease (12 A/C)
March (12 A/C)
Mildenhall (12 A/C)
McConnell (12 A/C)

The MILCON analysis is only for 164 aircraft, not the whole contract. They assume that only Altus and McConnell will have remaining KC-135 aircraft. They will only assess runways, taxiways, fuel hydrant features, and parking ramps and hangars (general maintenance and corrosion control only.

Hanger space is only needed for 15% of the aircraft at that base, for example Altus will get 8 KC-X, hanger space is needed for 1.2 aircraft, this is rounded down to 1, Grand Forks would need 1.8, that is rounded up to 2.

The number of parking spaces is calculated at 75% of what aircraft would be on the base that are not in the hanger, e.g. Grand Forks 12 aircraft, 2 in the hanger, number of parking spaces = (12 - 2) x 0.75 = 8 spaces.

Fuel usage

The USAF have listed prices per year for fuel to be used in the fuel usage analysis up to 2040, and will be evaluated, they have also made a small increase in the amount of reserve fuel that needs to be carried.

Will post more when I have had a chance to go through all the documentation.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
166 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12340 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 15487 times:

Quoting Zeke (Thread starter):
Pease (12 A/C)

Hurray for the New Hampshire National Guard!  
Quoting Zeke (Thread starter):
Will post more when I have had a chance to go through all the documentation.

Thanks, Zeke.

From the now-locked thread:

Quoting cpd (Reply 44):

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
Amusing perhaps, but defense procurement rules prevent underbidding so that a company doesn't do what is in essence happening with A400M: have the government invest so much time and money into the program that they have no choice but pay for the inevitable overruns.

Then take the cost overruns and absorb them - just to get a foothold in the USA - which would have Boeing in a cold-sweat.

That's also disallowed.

We know vendors give the USG detailed info on cost to produce. This is not a secret. Also we know this because Airbus complained during the last RFP that Boeing got to look at that data. The reason why this data is gathered is because both the underbidding scenarios you described and many others have been tried in the past. Bottom line is the government wants to assure that the vendor doesn't underbid so that the government doesn't have to bail them out later, and so that the competition is more fair.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15403 times:

Thanks for posting the RFP, Zeke. Just skimming it, I have not noticed any big changes from the RFP, yet. But, I'll have to go back and recheck the off-load range chart and a few other things. They look different, but may actually be the same info.

As was reported yesterday, the requirement for MLS approach/landing system has been dropped.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15360 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Thanks for posting the RFP, Zeke. Just skimming it, I have not noticed any big changes from the RFP, yet. But, I'll have to go back and recheck the off-load range chart and a few other things. They look different, but may actually be the same info.

230 changes....

BTW at the RFP breifing they said the RFP was complaint with the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, so the USAF is also now is saying it is relevent.



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, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15352 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
BTW at the RFP breifing they said the RFP was complaint with the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, so the USAF is also now is saying it is relevent.

That is a change from what they said about the DRFP, but thanks for the update.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15321 times:

When will Boeing submit its response? Is EADS definitely out of the competition?


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15252 times:

Discussing Milcon Altus should be the cheapest to bed down due to that they had C-5's and now have KC-135R and C-17's and probably have no problem with the huge A330.
Mildenhall and Kadena will defintly need major construction done to bed down the A330 and minor hanger extensions for the vertical stab for the 767. Mildenhall has ramp space for AMC traffic C-5/C-17 but no hanger space , I believe the phase hanger 711 is big enough for a 767.
The rest on that list will major construction for mx or corrision hangers and also for the PCN numbers for the runway thresholds even though B-52's and -135's have and landed heavy.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15154 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
When will Boeing submit its response? Is EADS definitely out of the competition?

The bids are not due until 1400 EDT on 10May 2010 to Wright Pat. I expect Boeing to submit their bid close to 1300 on that day. No, EADS/NG are not definately out, yet. NG has said there is a 96%-98% chance they will not bid, but that leaves the door open just a crack.

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 6):
The rest on that list will major construction for mx or corrision hangers and also for the PCN numbers for the runway thresholds even though B-52's and -135's have and landed heavy.

The old big "SAC" hanger at PSM is not owned by the NHANG, they have to rent it if they need it. They only have about 4 nose docks for their current KC-135Rs. They do have a lot of ramp space. All bases listed will have to have fuel hydrants moved or new installs, tied to under ramp fuel pipes and the fuel farm. That is expensive to do that type of work. I know the A-330 will need the fuel pits moved, I am not sure if they can attach longer hoses for refueling the B-767s or not. Both the A-330 and B-767 have the SPR about mid point on the right wing. The KC-135R, as you know has the SPR in the right main gear wheel well and the KC-135T has one in both main gear wheel wells.

Both the A-330 and B-767 will need fuel lift trucks to be ground refueled. The RFP does not say how the fuel tanks should be isolated for carrying more than one type of fuel, but it is a mandatroy requirement. This will mean at least two SPRs, like the KC-135Q/T.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15083 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
When will Boeing submit its response?

I guess in 75 days like everyone else. At the moment they are not even on the interested vendors list.

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 6):
Mildenhall and Kadena will defintly need major construction done to bed down the A330 and minor hanger extensions for the vertical stab for the 767. Mildenhall has ramp space for AMC traffic C-5/C-17 but no hanger space , I believe the phase hanger 711 is big enough for a 767.

Mildenhall will be a challenge for any aircraft, they have ruled out using the existing pads. The green areas in this chart is the areas where MILCON costs will be looked at, as you can see the existing pads are red (not to be evaluated).



Kadena on the other hand I would not see such a large issue, they should have enough space already for 8 parking spots.



Quoting venus6971 (Reply 6):
The rest on that list will major construction for mx or corrision hangers and also for the PCN numbers for the runway thresholds even though B-52's and -135's have and landed heavy.

The pavement analysis will take a fair bit of work, they have specified that they want the pavement to handle 50,000 passes at weighted average takeoff weight of the three mission profiles specified in the RFP.

The pavement will not be evaluated at the maximum certified TOW of the aircraft, it is being done at a TOW which is the weighted average of the 3 mission profiles, they are :
1) Operational Aerial Refuelling Mission Profile (Weighted: 54.0%)
2) Training Aerial Refuelling Mission Profile. (Weighted: 45.0%)
3) Operational Airlift Mission Profile. (Weighted: 1.0%)

I would expect the KC-767 and KC-30 to be well below the KC-10 for that analysis.



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, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15055 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
Mildenhall
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
Kadena

I agree, both bases have enough room to pave new parking areas.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
I would expect the KC-767 and KC-30 to be well below the KC-10 for that analysis.

Correct. Actually, any base than has a pavement strenght to handle a B-727-200IGW at about 220,000 lbs (most weight on just 4 tires) should be able to handle both the B-767 and A-330 at MTOW.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14978 times:

Changes noticed in Section L, "Instruction to Offerors"

Anticipated contract award date 16 August 2010

They have changed the contract from being a firm fixed price to fixed price.

Subfactor 1.2 systems engineering been expanded in terms of planning and certification planning. Added references to ozone depleting substances, and how much was used to make the aircraft, and how much you will need for future operation and maintenance

Expanded on the project management requirements and oversight.

Expanded on the interim contractor support, and stressed that the bases listed in the RFP may not be where the support will be needed. Also stressed that at the start they will have more aircraft spread around and that the interim contractor support would be needed at many bases in the early years. Also defines a new process called Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability support


Additional technical information sought :

APU exhaust location
Maximum on ground jacking height
On ground jacking maximum bearing loads
On ground jack point locations
Ground refuelling types and locations
Ground refuelling maximum and normal pressures and flow rates
Fuel vent locations
Turn radius at maximum ground weight
Taxi and TOW for FURA mission profiles
Maximum ground operating weight and CG



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14968 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
We know vendors give the USG detailed info on cost to produce. This is not a secret. Also we know this because Airbus complained during the last RFP that Boeing got to look at that data. The reason why this data is gathered is because both the underbidding scenarios you described and many others have been tried in the past. Bottom line is the government wants to assure that the vendor doesn't underbid so that the government doesn't have to bail them out later, and so that the competition is more fair.

Actually since NG is just "buying" the frames from a subcontractor the "cost to produce" can change due to a decreased negotiated cost with any of the vendors. How much does an A330 cost to an airline? How much of a discount can a customer (in this case NG) obtain from Airbus for a large order (164 frames)? I know that the A330 can sell for a lot less than it's "listed" $160million. While there will have to be substantiation of this pricing, the normal reason for the scrutiny is not for fairness but to ensure a supplier can deliver at the price quoted and not go under.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
off-load

The one requirement that Boeing was concerned with is still in there and that is the 1,200gpm fuel transfer rate. The current KC-135 boom does 1,176gpm and for some strange reason Boeing’s fifth-generation refueling boom developed for Japan only offloads at 900gpm. I can't imagine they won't be able to meet the rate though. Apparently the EADS boom in testing for delivery to Australia can meet the rate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s%20Some%20Changes&channel=defense
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nel=defense&id=news/BOOM120809.xml

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
Is EADS definitely out of the competition?

EADS was never in the competition. Or more precisely they weren't an original bidder, no matter how people here and everywhere like to spin it. NG has been talking about not bidding. I suspect that they are in heavy negotiations with Airbus and EADS right now to see if they can come to a price that works.

The one thing to remember is that NG does not need this, it is not a "must win" situation, so they have a lot more flexibility. The way they are structured, they don't own airframe capacity, they don't own tooling and facilities, they partner with or contract out many aspects of the awards they win. Their only criteria is can they make a lot of money on this?

An interesting question though is: Is it possible for EADS itself to bid for this contract (EADS/NA I assume)?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The bids are not due until 1400 EDT on 10May 2010 to Wright Pat. I expect Boeing to submit their bid close to 1300 on that day. No, EADS/NG are not definately out, yet. NG has said there is a 96%-98% chance they will not bid, but that leaves the door open just a crack.

  
As I mentioned, I suspect that NG is right now talking with Airbus/EADS about the bid. The possibility of just not bidding if the price is not right is an excellent negotiating tactic. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.

And of course the Airbus airframe/EADS boom isn't the whole ball of wax. As has been noted before, the support service portion will a huge aspect the NG will have to analyze to see if they can meet at a profit.

Tugg

[Edited 2010-02-25 11:27:30]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14915 times:

Quoting Zeke (Thread starter):
The USAF have included the option of purchasing the engines and airframes separately

I never liked Boeing's bid because they choose to mount P&W's on the wings, opposite of the earlier KC-767's, as opposed to giving the USAF the option of which engine they wanted; I believe the USAF had more in common with the GE powerplants. Anyways, does this not mean that the possibility of a GEnx powerplant (for either bid) cannot still be in the cards? Seems to me that per the touted savings in fuel efficiency the GEnx would pay for themselves through the lifespan of the aircraft. .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

As was reported yesterday, the requirement for MLS approach/landing system has been dropped.

The FAA suspended the MLS in 1994 in favor of GPS WAAS, why would MLS even be an issue?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 14866 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Quoting Zeke (Thread starter):
The USAF have included the option of purchasing the engines and airframes separately

I never liked Boeing's bid because they choose to mount P&W's on the wings, opposite of the earlier KC-767's, as opposed to giving the USAF the option of which engine they wanted; I believe the USAF had more in common with the GE powerplants. Anyways, does this not mean that the possibility of a GEnx powerplant (for either bid) cannot still be in the cards? Seems to me that per the touted savings in fuel efficiency the GEnx would pay for themselves through the lifespan of the aircraft. .

This will require each bidder to submit two full bid packages to the USAF, one with their full airplane offer, and one without engines. This gives the USAF the option of rejecting an engine without rejecting the entire airplane.

I don't know if the KC-30 can be offered without its CF-6 engines, as it uses the bigger fan and some 72,000 lbs of thrust. The GEnx-2B-67 engine only comes with 66,500 lbs of thrust. For the KC-30, can/will GE develope a bleed air version of the GEnx-1B engine used on the B-787? I don't know, but would say they would consider it if that is what the USAF wanted.

The USAF would have to then pay for any FAA certification that would be needed as neither the B-767 or A-330 offer the GEnx engines now. The USAF would also have to accept the costs of these engines, which my guess would be significantly more than the PW-4062A or CF-6-80E.

This is all assuming the OEMs offer the same engines as in 2008.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

As was reported yesterday, the requirement for MLS approach/landing system has been dropped.

The FAA suspended the MLS in 1994 in favor of GPS WAAS, why would MLS even be an issue?

MLS was originally in the DRFP as one of the (then) 373 requirements. The USAF does have MLS on some RC-135s as well as the two TC-135s. The systems are used in Alaska by the USAF. A few KC-135As had MLS, too. But IIRC, that has been removed.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14810 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
This will require each bidder to submit two full bid packages to the USAF, one with their full airplane offer, and one without engines. This gives the USAF the option of rejecting an engine without rejecting the entire airplane.

It was my impression that the USAF was turned off when Boeing announced all future KC-767's would only be available with P&W 4062's, so that sounds like a good thing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The USAF would also have to accept the costs of these engines, which my guess would be significantly more than the PW-4062A or CF-6-80E.

But with advertised 15% increases in fuel economy, over a 30 or 40 year lifespan, (not to mention less expensive maintenance as well,) that cost could add up real quick. Regardless, I'd like to see the actual math one way or the other.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
MLS was originally in the DRFP as one of the (then) 373 requirements. The USAF does have MLS on some RC-135s as well as the two TC-135s. The systems are used in Alaska by the USAF. A few KC-135As had MLS, too. But IIRC, that has been removed.

Interesting. While I'm glad that the requirement was taken out in the most recent RFP, that's seemingly so bizarre it makes you wonder what other mistakes or rather, "stupid silly stuff" may still be left in the RFP?!

Have you seen yet if there is a requirement for a fixed HUD like that found on modern Boeing aircraft, such as the 737NG and 787? I can't remember if it was in the previous RFP or not, I remember looking but I don't remember what I found. I did an hour and a half in the sim at WN and wow, that is an awfully impressive and useful tool, believe it or not. It would be a shame if either of the bids came without them for the money being spent; a lot of cars nowadays come with a HUD!


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14740 times:

I cannot see either Airbus or Boeing offering an aircraft with an engine other than the current standard options. For Boeing that would be the PW or GE for Airbus the RR could also be offered.

To re-engine the 767 would cost so much Boeing might as well give the order to NG.

At this point I doubt that Boeing has the engineering staff available to undertake a re-engining program.

Maybe in a couple years when the 787 and the -8 are in serial production and things have settled down.

If they did want to offer the GEnsx as a side option then the bleed air capable GEnx from the 747-8 would have to be the basis. I am not saying it would not be a great combination I just don't believe you will ever see a 767 with GEnx engines on it. Doing the winglets would buy you a nice bump in fuel savings and increase TO performance without impacting the program timeline.

For every step Boeing would take away from a proven baseline aircraft that they have now more time and resorces will be required to field that configuration and the risk would be increased.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
For the KC-30, can/will GE develope a bleed air version of the GEnx-1B engine used on the B-787?



They were willing to for the original Airbus A350 in exchange for the first two years of production exclusivity (helped by RR not committing at the time to a bleed-air Trent 1000). That being said...



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Anyways, does this not mean that the possibility of a GEnx powerplant (for either bid) cannot still be in the cards?



I tend to doubt it. GE have said the only way they will improve the CF6-80 is if they win the powerplant contract for KC-X because it will guarantee enough sales to make it worth while. At that point, I would expect them to reverse their decision to not offer an engine for the A330-200F since I expect the reason they refused is because they knew everyone would choose the RR Trent 700. And with Airbus Military evidently saying that they are considering pitching the A330-200F, a GE win would by default put them on the commercial platform, as well, and an improved CF6-80 would make it competitive with the Trent 700 on the A330-200HGW. All together, that should be plenty of orders to guarantee a fat RoI and improving the CF6 is going to be a great deal cheaper than resurrecting the GEnx-1BA.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14663 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
This will require each bidder to submit two full bid packages to the USAF, one with their full airplane offer, and one without engines. This gives the USAF the option of rejecting an engine without rejecting the entire airplane.

It was my impression that the USAF was turned off when Boeing announced all future KC-767's would only be available with P&W 4062's, so that sounds like a good thing.

I know the USAF does not have the PW-4062/A in the inventory, but that engine shares a common core with the PW-2040s on the C-17, So I don't see where the USAF would have a problem with either the PW-4062 or the PW-4062A.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The USAF would also have to accept the costs of these engines, which my guess would be significantly more than the PW-4062A or CF-6-80E.

But with advertised 15% increases in fuel economy, over a 30 or 40 year lifespan, (not to mention less expensive maintenance as well,) that cost could add up real quick. Regardless, I'd like to see the actual math one way or the other.

Correct, and that might be what they are looking at.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
MLS was originally in the DRFP as one of the (then) 373 requirements. The USAF does have MLS on some RC-135s as well as the two TC-135s. The systems are used in Alaska by the USAF. A few KC-135As had MLS, too. But IIRC, that has been removed.

Interesting. While I'm glad that the requirement was taken out in the most recent RFP, that's seemingly so bizarre it makes you wonder what other mistakes or rather, "stupid silly stuff" may still be left in the RFP?!

MLS is used at some USAF bases in Alaska.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
Have you seen yet if there is a requirement for a fixed HUD like that found on modern Boeing aircraft, such as the 737NG and 787? I can't remember if it was in the previous RFP or not, I remember looking but I don't remember what I found.

I'm not finished with this RFP, yet. Boeing, or EADS can offer a HUD as an option if it is not in the RFP. The C-17 has a HUD.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
I cannot see either Airbus or Boeing offering an aircraft with an engine other than the current standard options. For Boeing that would be the PW or GE for Airbus the RR could also be offered.

If the USAF wants a contract for the airplanes without engines, the airplane costs for each will go down by about $10M-$12M. Then the USAF can order engines directly from the engine OEMs.

This is a huge problem for EADS/NG, as it reduces the US content, significantly for the KC-30. It does the same for a KC-767, but the KC-767 is a lot more above the 51% content requirement than the KC-30 is.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
To re-engine the 767 would cost so much Boeing might as well give the order to NG.
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
At this point I doubt that Boeing has the engineering staff available to undertake a re-engining program.

This would be for both (all) offers. Boeing would find the engineers for mounting the GEnx engine, if that is what the USAF wants. For NG, this could be a great deal, as they could use NG engineers to do the work on the A-330. The USAF would pay for any certification required by the FAA and EASA. Such a program would enable EADS/Airbus to sell A-330s with the GE nx option, the same would be for Boeing if they wanted to sell additional B-767s. Both Boeing and Airbus would need to pay for certifications on other models of the B-767 and A-330.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
If they did want to offer the GEnsx as a side option then the bleed air capable GEnx from the 747-8 would have to be the basis. I am not saying it would not be a great combination I just don't believe you will ever see a 767 with GEnx engines on it.

That may be what the USAF is looking at, but I am just guessing here.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
Doing the winglets would buy you a nice bump in fuel savings and increase TO performance without impacting the program timeline.

The problem with the winglets (for the A-330 or B-767) is it reduces cross wind capability, which the USAF needs. EADS/NG can eliminate the winglets (they would have to pay for that certification), and Boeing does not have to offer them, or could replace them with the raked wingtips of the B-767-400ER, but this increases the wingspan.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14663 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
for Airbus the RR could also be offered.

CF6, I believe. If they offered a Trent, the whole argument about "U.S. content" would get weaker.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 15):
I cannot see either Airbus or Boeing offering an aircraft with an engine other than the current standard options.

Couldn't agree more.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14599 times:

Whoa!

As much as we would all like to you cannot simply plug wings or engines onto aircraft like picking apart some plastic models. The wing for the 767-200/-300/-400 may all be the same basic span but internally they are probably different. I do know the structural change for adding the winglets goes some 10 or more feet into the wing from the tip. The raked tips would probably be a similar change. Winglets also add over 10 feet to the span. 767 winglets are VERY big. So I question that you could simply take the -400 wing and put a -200 fuselage on top of it.

If a new engine is to be put on any aircraft the OEM will be the one to do it. A partner, like NG, could certainly assist but the certification would come via the OEM.

If the GEnx engine offered enough savings in fuel to pay off the extra cost in say five years then maybe it could be pitched as a side option but I doubt it. Putting the GEnx on the 767 takes away some of the margin for selling 787s. There is a lot more market there than the Air Force can ever fill. The original A350 offering to the market place was an A330 with new engines etc. It never made it out of the blocks. What kind of economics would a 767-300 with winglets and GEnx engines have. Pretty damn good compared to the standard model. But then there would be a lot less reason to build the 787.

The standard selections catalog for the 767 does not list a HUD. So unless it is an under the table option Boeing has not certified it on that airframe. Certification by the OEM whether it is Airbus or Boeing is always longer and more costly than doing it after market. You can do a HUD that way but not engines.

All 767 are delivered CAT IIIb autoland capable so having a HUD is nice but not necessary. It's biggest boost commercially is increased safety and it lowers the allowable takeoff visability. It does nothing for landing minimums.

I agree, the RR option on the 330 would not float in the US.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
The FAA suspended the MLS in 1994 in favor of GPS WAAS, why would MLS even be an issue?

In addition to what KC135TopBoom said, there is a fair bit of MLS deployment in Europe, especially in the UK.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14509 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 19):
The standard selections catalog for the 767 does not list a HUD. So unless it is an under the table option Boeing has not certified it on that airframe. Certification by the OEM whether it is Airbus or Boeing is always longer and more costly than doing it after market. You can do a HUD that way but not engines.

All 767 are delivered CAT IIIb autoland capable so having a HUD is nice but not necessary. It's biggest boost commercially is increased safety and it lowers the allowable takeoff visability. It does nothing for landing minimums.

WN has all of their 737 -300 and -500 series aircraft retrofitted with a HUD similar to that on their -700's, it should be a nominal cost and hell, thrown in for free by Boeing just to get the bid. You can fold it up or down as necessary, and is really nice to have when you need it. Even with CAT IIIb autoland capability, it's still an asset in both the takeoff and approach phases of flight, and all new aircraft a la the 787 for example, will have it come standard.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14371 times:

Defense industry daily http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ is reporting the crash iinvestigation report of AF447 will have major blowback into this contest . A paraphrase of the report is in der spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679980,00.html and is being discussed on Anet in this forum The Last Four Minutes Of Air France Flight 447 (by osteogenesis Feb 25 2010 in Civil Aviation)


From my preliminary reading of this RFP I'm wondering why're we pretending there's a competition on at all. this is a farcical charade whose winner has already been decided. Would be best if NG/EADS withdrew, allowing Boeing to screw over the government, and they themselves concentrated on screwing over European governments with the a-400M bringing their respective "minimum domestic content requirements" home to roost.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8871 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 14299 times:

SRD changes

3.1.1.13 Aircraft types to be refuel, same as KC-135 either with boom, MPRS, or BDA. Same speed and altitude requirements, and same maximum fuel on flow rates. Essentially this means no Osprey.

3.1.1.18 The tanker must be able to refuel in the event of a single failure .

3.1.1.24.2 drogue refuelling must be 400 gpm @ 55 psi (max) downstream of the receiver.

3.1.1.24.5 centreline hose must be able to be severed and ejected with having to further retract or retract

3.1.3.2 Manual control of fuel transfer overriding automatic CG control

3.2.1.5.2 cargo door to be powered open/close without engines or APU running

3.2.1.5.3 the cargo door shall allow a 463L pallet that is 96" tall to be loaded

3.2.2.4.1 changed to accommodate more types of patient support pallets

3.3.1.1-36 Cat 3a ILS now required

3.3.1.6 uplink local Wx conditions by data link every 10 minutes

3.4.2.6.1 Quick start procedure change

3.4.3.1.2 180 minute ETOPS

3.4.3.9.4 DC power to crew seats so they can work with chem/bio suit on

3.4.3.22 New mandatory requirement regarding a flight observer

3.5.1.4 reworded the ballistic protection paragraphs

Definition changes

Additional aircrew member
Armour coverage
Common atmospheric disturbance
Covert lighting
Flying qualities
Incapacities
LAIRCM systems
level 1 (satisfactory)
level 2 (tolerable)
Mean repair time
Normal lighting
Parking space
Pilot in the loop oscillation ratings
primary aircraft
provides for
Weapons system reliability

Slight changes in the Six-ship Self Deployment Package, no change to weight.
Slight changes to the wording of the various ACARS messages.

Mission profiles changed.

Mission 1 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 30,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 2 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 33,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 3 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 24,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 4 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 34,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 4 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 34,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 6 with wing pods installed land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 31,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 7 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 34,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

Mission 8 now includes land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude and land with 20,000 lbs fuel above reserves.

END SRD changes

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):

How much does an A330 cost to an airline?

from Airlines Saying Suppliers Overcharging (by Zeke Sep 14 2009 in Civil Aviation)

Quote:
Total cost of an A330-300 being US$93 million.
Airframe : 43 million
Engines ; 30 million
Seats/IFE/Internals : 12 million
Avionics : 3 million
Landing gear : 3 million
APU : 2 million
Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):

EADS was never in the competition. Or more precisely they weren't an original bidder, no matter how people here and everywhere like to spin it. NG has been talking about not bidding. I suspect that they are in heavy negotiations with Airbus and EADS right now to see if they can come to a price that works.

That is correct, the reason being "This competition shall exclude award to a foreign prime contractor based on the required access to restricted information during contract performance."

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):
An interesting question though is: Is it possible for EADS itself to bid for this contract (EADS/NA I assume)?

I assume so, EADS NA have other secure contracts with the DoD already. What is being overlooked here is the intelligence platform the USAF has asked teh KC-X to also be, NG have the expeience with this, and aready have deveoped the equipmet that is in use with the USAF today.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):
As I mentioned, I suspect that NG is right now talking with Airbus/EADS about the bid. The possibility of just not bidding if the price is not right is an excellent negotiating tactic.

I think that is a strong possibility still, the USAF has not connected the IFARA and FURA, it would have been more logical to run the FURA on the IFARA model so the cost/benifit of the capabilty and cost could be measured. As it stands now teh FURA is based upon all aircraft doing the same number of fixed hours a year over a 40 year life cycle, it ignores the capability differances (e.g cruise speed) or IFARA results.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):

If the USAF wants a contract for the airplanes without engines, the airplane costs for each will go down by about $10M-$12M. Then the USAF can order engines directly from the engine OEMs.

This is a huge problem for EADS/NG, as it reduces the US content, significantly for the KC-30. It does the same for a KC-767, but the KC-767 is a lot more above the 51% content requirement than the KC-30 is.

Engines cost more than 10-12 million each, let alone for 2, you would be looking at over 30 million per airframe. The total number of engines to be supplies is 368, 179x2+10 spares (2 spare engines per lot, 5 lots).

The USAF state they will use the same engine as in the proposal, they are not aiming to change the type of engine. What I think they are aiming at is the ability to get a "power by the hour" deal for the 358 engines, and make the engine manufacturer have sufficient spares at all the normal operating bases. The engine manufacturer under the same deal could handle all the ongoing maintenance of the engines for the USAF. If the KC-767 is selected this would avoid them being in the same position they are today with KC-135s, having an engine with no civil equivalent in production (they finished back when 737-300s went out of production), so the USAF gets charged more for engine spares. The 787 has started its flight testing, and the backlog of civil 767 is small, so it is likely that very few additional new 767 would be built.

The potential savings by doing this I think would be around 10-11 billion in up front costs, it would result in slightly higher hourly running costs but that maybe offset by lower cost of spares, and fixing in future maintenance costs, not needing to do in house engine overhauls, and not needing to buy the additional 10 spare engines (another 300 million in savings).

The US content percentage of the final product does not change, as the same engine is going to be used. If the USAF negotiates directly with GE and asks NG to put them on KC-30, the paper asset value would still have the same percentage of US content is they were supplied by NG.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 22):
Defense industry daily http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ is reporting the crash iinvestigation report of AF447 will have major blowback into this contest . A paraphrase of the report is in der spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679980,00.html and is being discussed on Anet in this forum The Last Four Minutes Of Air France Flight 447 (by osteogenesis Feb 25 2010 in Civil Aviation)

This is a red herring, it is not a consideration in the RFP.

I will contribute to the CivAv link in due course, but it does pose a number of factual errors in the original article, which is not uncommon as most people reporting the news would not be qualified on type.

It would be useful to keep AF447 as a CivAv discussion in the link you provided, this thread is going to be long enough without being side tracked on issues not included in the RFP.



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, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14067 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 19):
Whoa!

As much as we would all like to you cannot simply plug wings or engines onto aircraft like picking apart some plastic models. The wing for the 767-200/-300/-400 may all be the same basic span but internally they are probably different. I do know the structural change for adding the winglets goes some 10 or more feet into the wing from the tip. The raked tips would probably be a similar change. Winglets also add over 10 feet to the span. 767 winglets are VERY big. So I question that you could simply take the -400 wing and put a -200 fuselage on top of it.

In the 2008 KC-767AT, IIRC, Boeing was putting the B-767-300ERF wing on the B-767-200LRF, as well as using some of the B-767-400ER trailing edge devices.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 19):
The standard selections catalog for the 767 does not list a HUD. So unless it is an under the table option Boeing has not certified it on that airframe. Certification by the OEM whether it is Airbus or Boeing is always longer and more costly than doing it after market. You can do a HUD that way but not engines.

All 767 are delivered CAT IIIb autoland capable so having a HUD is nice but not necessary. It's biggest boost commercially is increased safety and it lowers the allowable takeoff visability. It does nothing for landing minimums.

Most USAF aircraft (exception for the VC-25, C-32, C-40B/C, and EC/OC/RC-135) do not use Cat IIIb capability, but do fly to Cat IIIa minimums. I agree that a HUD is not needed for that, but is used to fly into runways that have limited or no nav-aids at all.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 19):
If a new engine is to be put on any aircraft the OEM will be the one to do it. A partner, like NG, could certainly assist but the certification would come via the OEM.

If the GEnx engine offered enough savings in fuel to pay off the extra cost in say five years then maybe it could be pitched as a side option but I doubt it. Putting the GEnx on the 767 takes away some of the margin for selling 787s. There is a lot more market there than the Air Force can ever fill. The original A350 offering to the market place was an A330 with new engines etc. It never made it out of the blocks. What kind of economics would a 767-300 with winglets and GEnx engines have. Pretty damn good compared to the standard model. But then there would be a lot less reason to build the 787.

Zeke is correct below. The USAF could simplt buy the engines offered by the OEMs directly from the engine makers, or select another engine. But essentially if they did that, the engines become government owned and provided equipment, thus reducing the costs of the airplane to just the airframe without engines. This would, however require a second USAF contract just to build, buy, and support the engines and seperate from the airframe.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
SRD changes

3.1.1.13 Aircraft types to be refuel, same as KC-135 either with boom, MPRS, or BDA. Same speed and altitude requirements, and same maximum fuel on flow rates. Essentially this means no Osprey.

No, the MV/CV-22 refueling may be required;

see 3.1.1.13 and 3.1.1.14 (mandatory) the KC-135 can refuel down to 180 KIAS. This tells me the KC-X will be required to match that speed beyond the current KC-135 restrictions (about 75% of MGW). The USAF seems to be relying on STANAG 3447. Also see 3.1.1.13.1, 3.1.1.13.2, and 3.1.1.14.1 (non-mandatrory) which specifies speeds down to 190 KIAS and refueling the MV/CV-22. I agree these to sections on the MV/CV-22 are not one of the mandatory 372 requirements, but clearly the USAF would prefer to have this capability, as without it the only refueling possibilities for the MV/CV-22 would be the USMC KC-130J tanker.

This will not be a requirement the USAF is willing to pay for, unless the bid prices come within the 1% margin.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):

If the USAF wants a contract for the airplanes without engines, the airplane costs for each will go down by about $10M-$12M. Then the USAF can order engines directly from the engine OEMs.

This is a huge problem for EADS/NG, as it reduces the US content, significantly for the KC-30. It does the same for a KC-767, but the KC-767 is a lot more above the 51% content requirement than the KC-30 is.

Engines cost more than 10-12 million each, let alone for 2, you would be looking at over 30 million per airframe. The total number of engines to be supplies is 368, 179x2+10 spares (2 spare engines per lot, 5 lots).

The USAF state they will use the same engine as in the proposal, they are not aiming to change the type of engine. What I think they are aiming at is the ability to get a "power by the hour" deal for the 358 engines, and make the engine manufacturer have sufficient spares at all the normal operating bases. The engine manufacturer under the same deal could handle all the ongoing maintenance of the engines for the USAF. If the KC-767 is selected this would avoid them being in the same position they are today with KC-135s, having an engine with no civil equivalent in production (they finished back when 737-300s went out of production), so the USAF gets charged more for engine spares. The 787 has started its flight testing, and the backlog of civil 767 is small, so it is likely that very few additional new 767 would be built.

The potential savings by doing this I think would be around 10-11 billion in up front costs, it would result in slightly higher hourly running costs but that maybe offset by lower cost of spares, and fixing in future maintenance costs, not needing to do in house engine overhauls, and not needing to buy the additional 10 spare engines (another 300 million in savings).

The US content percentage of the final product does not change, as the same engine is going to be used. If the USAF negotiates directly with GE and asks NG to put them on KC-30, the paper asset value would still have the same percentage of US content is they were supplied by NG.

Thanks for the price correction. I did not realize it would be that high for engines alone (I assume the price includes engine related equipment like cowlings, struts, plumbing work for fuel lines hydraulics and electrical, inlets, etc.).

But, the way I see it, it would reduce the US content from both airplanes by XX%, at least in costs as the engines would become "government provided equipment". Of course this does not include the OEM's labor for designing and installing the engines and related equipment.

Assuming each KC-767 costs $120M, then a $30M cost reduction would mean a reduced US content of as much as 25%, and assuming each KC-30 costs $150M, then the US content would reduce by as much as 20%. The cost numbers are my guess, and nothing more. This may be an idea of some Boeing political supporters trying to get the KC-30 US content below the majic 51% number. Again, that is just a guess.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
It would be useful to keep AF447 as a CivAv discussion in the link you provided, this thread is going to be long enough without being side tracked on issues not included in the RFP.

I agree here. It has always been my position that we do not have all the facts into the AF-447 tragidy. What we know of the pitiot tube problems has been addressed, but we don't know how much the pitiot tube problem contributed to the accident. Was it the sole cause, a contibuting factor, or no factor? Right now we just don't know and may never know unless the DFDR and DVCR are recovered and the data on them is still useful. They have been sitting in some 12,000' (about 3,693 m) of salt water for close to 9 months now.

If the AF accident is somehow determined to be related to the A-330 airframe, that can be corrected. I am more concerned about the abrupt attitude and altitude problems suffered on the two QF A-330s. Should something like that happen during air refueling, then that could mean the loss of the tanker and all receivers on the boom or drogues.


25 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It is interesting to read the rather bland press releases for both Boeing and NG on receiving the KC-X RFP from the USAF on Wednesday. http://www.irco
26 par13del : MILCON may be more defined but for purposes of the RFP, it has been dummed down to minimize the potential cost for the larger frame if chosen, I thin
27 ken777 : Actually it would be best if NG/EADS kept their cards close to their vest until the deadline. No use giving Boeing any help. And there is no telling
28 Post contains links Lumberton : They could do that, but if they're not going to bid what's the point? NG and Boeing collaborate on other projects. Why poison the well further? Also,
29 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : NG/EADS does have options; Defense analyst Loren Thompson, of Lexington Institute, wrote that Northrop has four options: 1. Bid on a contract it would
30 par13del : Boeing would look foolish if they were to loose the contract because the overcharged for their smaller less expensive a/c, it would lend credance to
31 ThePointblank : I think the issue is that currently, EADS prices its planes in US dollars, but its production costs are in Euro's. As such, how much they earn in com
32 Shmertspionem : Yep they could play poker - publicly confirm they're not bidding - wait for Boeing to get greedy and give a hefty cost estimate and 1 hour before the
33 XT6Wagon : You mean a paid for spokesweasel "leaking" information that was pro-NG before the winner was announced, and turned out to be completely false. You me
34 Zeke : The SRD now states that only aircraft that are currently cleared for the KC-135 need to be considered. The Osprey is not cleared on the KC-135 today.
35 Shmertspionem : First what do partial to NG leaks have to do with this. The point i made was - and reported widely in the defence press was that the AF was pissed of
36 Post contains links Lumberton : If this is accurate, it could have a decisive impact on the tanker contest. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogD
37 STT757 : Wow, I thought all would go towards active duty units. March is an Air Force Reserve Base and Pease is New Hampshire Air National Guard. The Seymour
38 KC135TopBoom : Sorry, I just don't see either Boeing or EADS/NG inflating their new bids, the USAF will see through that right away. The USAF knows what Boeing char
39 STT757 : The 108th NJANG at McGuire AFB lost a squadron when they retired the KC-135E's a year or two ago, they went from 16 KC-135E's to 8 KC-135R's. They wa
40 XT6Wagon : They INTENTIONALY failed a manditory requirement to transition MX services from NG to USAF within 2 years. They were told multiple times they failed
41 Post contains images Zeke : ATP-56(B) (Feb 2010 edition) now stipulates 210KIAS as the flaps up/down cross over speed, it also places a limit of 190KIAS as the minimum speed for
42 KC135TopBoom : I don't have the Feb. 2010 version/change to ATP-56. Increasing the flaps up/down speed does increase the safety and manuvering margin. But, that is
43 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Sorry...no. Never. He speaks fluent Texan, not English. That's your problem right there. And he's not President anymore...so who will you blame if th
44 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Huge props to Zeke and KC135TopBoom for your postings on this thread. Very informative - adding both of you to my RUlist. Thanks!
45 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38): ?????, that makes no sense at all. Its a story called cry wolf - it goes like this - there was little boy in a little
46 Post contains images par13del : If I understand your post correctly, in combat scenarios, the Russian tactic has been tanker denial I take that to mean shooting down tankers or caus
47 KC135TopBoom : For some reason, I cannot get the IM function to work this morning. But to answer you, it is no big deal to me. I enjoy the debate. Actually, America
48 Zeke : It is not in ATP-56(B). It is up to the GAA to find supporting documents if a protest is lodged, and for the USAF to provide them. In this case, the
49 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : Nope wrong. if you read the preceding paragraph I wanted to know why 737-9/321 style platforms were not considered since there size and nimbleness wo
50 par13del : I'm glad you mentioned that one, it has some bearing on why the US Air Force has so screwed up this entire process, that one did not work and so far
51 KC135TopBoom : Because neither the B-739, A-321, or even a B-752 can meet, never mind exceed the off-load capability of the KC-135. Of the current commericial aircr
52 Post contains links ThePointblank : I think there is a difference between 'not safe to fly' and 'no longer economical to fly.' If Chile was willing to cough up the money to fix the more
53 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Alright then. Forgive my own knee-jerk...it's required in my contract, you see. It's "y'all".
54 ThePointblank : Disagree. The Bf-109, Hurricane and the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain were fairly evenly matched in capabilities. However, the Bf-109 suffere
55 Post contains images Shmertspionem : SO the Af has given up on high threat, high altitude rapid refuelling altogether preferring stand off distance refuelling? cus neither the 767 or 330
56 Zeke : 1% To even be in contention the first factor which they have called the mission capability (Factor 1) must be met, this is a binary state. If a vendo
57 Ken777 : If our economy was strong and our national debt was trivial then costing 330 related expenses to other programs or bases might be argued. To do so un
58 Shmertspionem : thanks Zeke .. one further clarification pls. By adjust do we mean winner additions/subtractions (767 and 330 passed factor 1 so 1 point each - 767 w
59 11Bravo : Your observations raise an excellent point. The RFP is just one component, albeit an important one, in this whole acquisition process. The RFP addres
60 Post contains links and images Zeke : Factor 1 is pass/fail, no marks allocated. After receiving a pass in Factor 1, Factor 2 is the adjustment to the TPP. The TEP is calculated by the di
61 Post contains images Shmertspionem : This is precisely the answer you get when defence contracts are decided by people without economics training. this is no accounting game - this is so
62 Shmertspionem : yep got that bit i just used 1point on factor 1 for illustration purposes.- what ure saying is Factor 1 - elimination round - no points for passing f
63 Post contains links and images Zeke : Factor 2 is only a cost adjustment round. See the image in reply 60. Subtractive to go from TPP to TEP, this is an example of the USAF put it in the
64 Shmertspionem : Gotit! Zeke u're magnificent and super efficient. Thank you! adding you to respected users.... what's that old Chinese toast to the emperor " may the
65 Post contains images par13del : What you miss in your scenario is that the option is to buy a Sienna that can accomodate the 6 kids or a full size Hummer that can take 10 kids - 4 m
66 Shmertspionem : Did you get what context that paragraph was in? it wasn't a comparison of A330 vs 767 capability, efficiency or any of that..... it wasn't aviation a
67 KC135TopBoom : It was the USAF who said the KC-135E was not safe to fly, it said nothing about it not being econmical to fly. This RFP requires defensive systems on
68 Zeke : They said a number of specific frames were unsafe, and the maintenance burden on the remaining was high. They never said all were unsafe, and the KC-
69 KC135TopBoom : Me bad.......... But, Boeing did get the RFP released last week. I have only scene the press releases from NG and Boeing acknowledging they received
70 Shmertspionem : But are their internal audits countable as as evidence? i mean wouldn't a Boeing audit say Boeing did better and a Airbus audit say the Airbus did be
71 Zeke : No, I do not think so, but I belive NG would still have a case under the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 with regard ot the life cycle
72 Shmertspionem : Normally how close are they meant to be? Is it situation dependant or is there some standard range. Hey sorry to rehash this old remark but need some
73 Zeke : I have not done the 757 numbers, but the A321 just would not have the fuel capacity. The underfloor space on the a321 fits 10 containers, each contai
74 Shmertspionem : I stand corrected SO the main passenger deck is not used to store fuel then? I thought factor 3 req for manual or camera monitoring of the rear kinda
75 KC135TopBoom : Either company could use their own audit to help justify the GAO protests, and submit it as evidence showing how they calculated the costs compared t
76 PolymerPlane : Plus, the KC-135 is a 4-engine airplane. It has much better engine out take off performance than a twin. If you look at the numbers on KC-135 and KC-
77 Shmertspionem : So if the upper deck were modified to a combi config then the A 321 could carry the remaining 25k pounds (IE 5 containers worth) and the remaining 1/
78 KC135TopBoom : I'm sure that can be done, but it would take a huge amount of engineering and design work for either an A-321 or a B-739. It would push the empty wei
79 Zeke : The KC-767 and KC-30 are already flying, no reason why an evaluation of each type could not be made in months, and relatively cheaply. If you looked
80 KC135TopBoom : Well, I agree the KC-30 and KC-767 are flying now, but neither is close enough to what the USAF wants in all, or most respects. The RAAF KC-30 is clos
81 Zeke : You are the champion of the viewpoint that their primary role is that of a tanker. Both can offload fuel now. Additional centre tanks are available n
82 XT6Wagon : In the F22's case about all that can be said to have come from the YF-22 was the look, thats how screwed up the system is. Yet it is flawed to base a
83 Post contains images EPA001 : This is absolute rubbish. Please stay on topic and that is the current RFP. With posts like these the discussion derails very easily. Beside that the
84 KC135TopBoom : I knew that, but did not know what the total package costs was. Without turning this into a price per unit like the A-400M threads are, I only wanted
85 Post contains links Shmertspionem : The total Package was for 1.5 billion USD (300mil per aircraft) which included not just the physical infrastructure of training but also the actual t
86 Zeke : No, the original order was for 4 aircraft, they added an aircraft afterwards. You cannot draw the total package price and divide it up by the number
87 Post contains links Shmertspionem : Yes but my understanding was that the 5th plane was included in the exercisable options of the initial contract, much like the wedgetail contract exp
88 Zeke : Usable fuel load is around 160,000 lb, the amount available for offload depends on a number of factors. It was 1.71 billion euros which included spar
89 rheinwaldner : Do I understand correctly that the price of the airframe is NOT the ultimate decisive factor? Can those adjustements turn the table even if one aircr
90 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Whoa!!!!! that's one major leap from 6000 crores. What's the source of these figures because if they're true then the def min has just misled parliam
91 Post contains links Zeke : That is correct, but the adjustment method in my view is not correct, the FURA analysis does not take into account the efficiency/capability of the K
92 Shmertspionem : Zeke pls see IM on this ive sent you - its too long and off subject for this forum plus probably borders on libellous. Yes but that's just adding a s
93 KC135TopBoom : Thanks, Zeke. Correct, nor does the Japanese or Italian tankers have the 1200 gpm Boom. The Italian tanker does have the WARPs and centerline drogue
94 Shmertspionem : You mean it uses up a full half of its fuel load just to reach 500nm???? that sounds super duper inefficient to me. What about the IAI produced boom
95 PolymerPlane : No, it does not use up a full half just to reach 500 nm. The off load number is based on a scenario, which includes, getting to 500 nm distance, loit
96 ThePointblank : From looking at IAI publications, it can only do 900gpm... it too will need a redesign.
97 KC135TopBoom : Correct. plus you need to add the distance flown during the air refueling, which could be another 250-300 nm. So, the total distance flown, including
98 Post contains images oykie : Boeing will offer a 767 based airplane with a 787 cockpit!!! No news on engines. From Boeing Media.
99 N328KF : Definitely a stab at the EADS KC-45 here.
100 Post contains images par13del : Why, is there a limitation??
101 N328KF : The statement implies that, as Boeing's KC-X offering would not have that limitation, that the other offering (A330MRTT) would have that limitation.
102 Post contains images EPA001 : No more then other FBW airplanes have had issues, including the ones from Boeing. See the detailled posts from Zeke & Mandala in the AF447 thread
103 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The KC-767 will have blended winlets, and the Boom looks like it is an updated KC-10A Boom (Gen. III). That saves major funding developing a Gen. V Bo
104 N328KF : I didn't say anything other than this is the intended implication. Again, whether or not what you are stating is true is irrelevant to my point.
105 Zeke : It may have 787 displays but it will still be a dumb cockpit, like saying the 767-400 or 773NG has a 777 cockpit they don’t have the AIMs cabinet t
106 Ken777 : And one of the first lessons I learned in Econ 101 many years ago was something about "limited resources". And while it may be desirable from some po
107 Shmertspionem : Be fair! that judgement especially given the tampering of the flight boxes was a mockery of justice.
108 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : First calling the study of acute poverty "exotic" is very tasteless. that said wouldn't you want those "limited resources" (if a 600 billion dollar b
109 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, but in Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎ (by yazoo Mar 4 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) we read: Based on this
110 KC135TopBoom : You can be assured the military avionics in either the KC-767 or KC-30 will be different to some degree than what is in commerical aircraft. It will
111 Shmertspionem : No KC i did not know - but now that you mention it - i now know. Me thinks that's a very good idea - my preferred option - but say a twin engine re-e
112 PolymerPlane : Well that's what's called IFARA, and this competition is adjusted for that kind of unit difference. If you just read the media reports, they are quit
113 Shmertspionem : Not exactly IFARA if I understood correctly is a capability/efficiency based, differential subtractive adjustment of the TPP where major increase is
114 Post contains links PolymerPlane : That is exactly how IFARA works. Here's an excerpt from Boeing's tanker website: The IFARA program models tanker refueling needs in four different sc
115 Shmertspionem : My friend i understand what ure saying - but ure not understanding what i'm saying. The subtraction cant be statistical. The subtraction has to be ma
116 KC135TopBoom : I remember when the CFM-56-2B engine was selected to reengine the KC-135. There was some initial concern that the max angle of bank would be reduced
117 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Faster for large aircraft not for fighters. Thats why Le May ordered the transition since strategic bombing accounted for a fleet of hundreds of bomb
118 XT6Wagon : Nope, refueling on all but the largest aircraft is limited by the reciever's rate, not the boom rate. The *only* way one plane can replace more than
119 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Thanks for repeating what I said - pls read the first part of reply 117 or more booms/drogues per airborne tanker. the first is impossible - the seco
120 ThePointblank : You forgot the USN, and the USMC... both services do use USAF tanker services. Also, don't forget some of your allies; Canada 'borrows' the occasiona
121 Zeke : Not really. To give you an analogy, consider the current 767-200ER as an Intel 80486 based PC running Windows 3.1. Replacing the case the motherboard
122 XT6Wagon : I specificly stated they did some drogue service for these groups. Its not thier main job however. I know this. I'd have to dig it up again for the e
123 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Perhaps the less convoluted explanation is that the AF has too many tankers and individual aircraft are being underutilised. SO they need far fewer p
124 XT6Wagon : yes. For me a 135E to 135R program or perhaps even more upgrades would be the proper program at this time. I'd support a limited buy of KC767adv for
125 Shmertspionem : Join the club - so many of us here are reaching that conclusion that I'm beginning to wonder what your congress and AF were thinking. See that's bias
126 oykie : Not arguing against you here, but care to explain what AIM cabinet does? I imagine that Boeing sould do more on the avionics for the 767 than is plan
127 KC135TopBoom : The transfer rate varies by airplane type, all will start out at a high rate for Boom or drogue refueling (up to about 1000 gpm for Boom and up to 40
128 Zeke : The AIMs cabinets are on the left and right hand side as you enter the 777 flight deck. AIMS means Airplane Information Management System, it is the
129 ThePointblank : Yes, and while the KC-135 does have a drogue capability, they only have so many pods. Other times, you have to attach a drogue adapter for the boom,
130 KC135TopBoom : Actually, you can go beyond the "certified limits" up to and including the "designed structual limits" that all aircraft have. The designed structual
131 Shmertspionem : And evidently in the gulf and afghanistan those assets weren't enough which is why the british had to bear the bulk even of USN refuelling (CRS repor
132 par13del : Yeah, but that's not a US Air Force problem, that's the Navy problem which they created, have known was an issue and have done nothing to correct. Th
133 Shmertspionem : It would be good if you actually read the report. The Navy wanted to buy a tanker fleet in the 90's and this was aborted by AF interservice jealousy
134 par13del : I did, this was my second read, thanks. That is 1990's, the Navy's problem with tankers predates the Gulf Wars and the current KC-X program, as for t
135 Post contains images Ken777 : The problem is defining the most effective solution in the times we are living in. Right now those times are not that great for most people. What is
136 PlayLoud : The difference between a 486 and a Core i7 is WAY bigger than the difference between a 767 and a 787. Core 2 Quad vs Core i7 is probably a more reali
137 ThePointblank : It is an Air Force problem, because if the USN got proper tankers, the USAF would have kittens. Likewise, the USAF is trying to control ALL of the US
138 PolymerPlane : Why didn't USN get planes with boom refueling port as opposed to the probe?
139 AirRyan : No one knows what our Congress is thinking, half of them are out for their own gain to begin with. Because any buddy tanking from a carrier-borne air
140 Post contains images par13del : Questions and answers why the Navy tanker problem is a Navy problem, their tanker capabilities diverged from the Air Force when the boom method went
141 ThePointblank : Problem was that the USAF would have done everything it could to sabotage or derail any purchase of KC-135's by the Navy. Remember, this was the era
142 Post contains images par13del : Exactly, parallel programs, so if they could not get the KC-135 maybe a DC-8 or some other frame? Point is that the Navy never adequately addressed t
143 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Very good points - I accept them in their entirety ...... except the apple bit one diff of opinion though - U say buy 767 I say maintain 135 till you
144 ThePointblank : Then you got a Regulus-Matador situation... two missiles that looked the same, and had the same engine to do the very same job. Most likely, KC-X wil
145 Stitch : Reuters and The Seattle Times are reporting NG WILL NOT BID on the KC-X program and will make a formal announcement after the markets close. NG is sai
146 keesje : It seems NG/EADS pulled out of competition because the RFP is tailored for the KC767. I think we have to congratulate the US congess with this victory
147 Post contains images par13del : Well at least by scrapping the initial Boeing lease deal, mandating changes to the second RFP which allowed NG to win and changing it again to allow
148 ThePointblank : Then we shall wait for the inevitable cost rises and cost overruns that will occur because the Boeing aircraft is a composite of various 767's put to
149 tarheelwings : You realize of course that Boeing supporters will say that the original RFP was changed to favor the NG/EADS airplane. With so much partisanship and
150 PolymerPlane : It is a fixed-price contract. Similar contract to the A400M. It will force manufacturer to eat the cost overruns. I do not know if the winner is goin
151 Post contains links keesje : That doesn't seem to be the case. NG the requirements are changed in a way only the KC767 will qualify. March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Northrop Grumman Corp.
152 Post contains links aeroLogan : Interesting the quotes from Northrop and there calling out Boeing to significantly beat their price http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnew
153 par13del : Well a lot of folks even on this site reviewed the RFP and did not come to that definate conclusion, most felt they had a chance. NG has complained t
154 Acheron : I think you should change that for "was", since I'm pretty sure Boeing is going to shaft the USAF, and deservedly so. I'm glad NG/EADS pullet out.
155 Ken777 : I think we need to congratulate the USAF for finally realizing that they cannot have all of the shinny new toys that they want. About time they under
156 Post contains images Tugger : Of course it might now become a price fixed contract.... And the folks of this site are not NG nor are they spending their own money to bid on the RF
157 Stitch : First off, Congress didn't create the bid requirements, the USAF did. Second, the Democrats have shown they do not have the political will to force an
158 Beta : Amen. This is probably the closest to the truth as to the reason NG chose not to bid. Secondly there is no written lawful provision to stop NG from b
159 Post contains links Lumberton : I doubt that. The military work will be done in Kansas. Down the line, who knows? Here is more on the decision and the aftermath. It includes a state
160 Post contains images par13del : This I do not understand, but to continue the trend of thought, maybe NG should try to get involved with the A400M to bring their honesty and fiscal
161 Lumberton : I've wondered about that myself. IMO, it would behoove to wait for the end of the bidding period before declaring that there's only one bid and they'
162 Stitch : They can certainly try, but nothing is stopping SecDef Gates from rejecting the RFP and just moving forward with the existing KC-135 fleet. Even if t
163 Post contains links Shmertspionem : The one thing that is certain is that this contract will now be anything BUT fixed price. Boeing is free to extort all the money it chooses - especia
164 N328KF : Can we close this thread, and the two related ones, and consolidate into one new one?
165 Stitch : He killed the F-22 and VH-71 programs, which is going to cost a lot of people in their jobs, and he's trying to kill the C-17 program. He's also canc
166 Shmertspionem : and yet refuses to kill the F-35 whose purported cost advantages have now reduced to the point of being a joke. The dynamics of election year, low pr
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...
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke
KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled! posted Wed Sep 10 2008 06:40:05 by Observer
KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2 posted Fri Sep 5 2008 03:40:43 by Scbriml
KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008 posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:23:34 by Tugger
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
KC-X RFP To Be Released Wed. 24 Feb. posted Tue Feb 23 2010 16:43:01 by KC135TopBoom
A or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010 posted Fri Nov 7 2008 09:28:46 by FCKC
What If The Usaf Needed A Smaller Tanker? KC-767? posted Mon Mar 31 2008 14:36:41 by Jackonicko
Is The KC-10 Tanker Faster Than The Standard DC-10 posted Mon Nov 19 2007 21:14:36 by Blackbird