Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8392 times:

Well, tomorrow is 7/9/10, the day the KC-X bids are due to Wright-Pattersen AFB, OH (at 1400L).

Both Boeing and EADS are expected to meet the deadline and submit their offers.

Does anyone think either EADS or Boeing (or both) will publicly release more detailed information of their respective offers to the USAF (less classified information) after the bid deadline?

I think the PR campagins will ratchet up significantly from each company, claiming how each bid is better for the warfighter and tax payer than the other. But that may be about it, with few additional details reveiled. I would like, however to see more details, but I don't think they will release much more than they currently have.

Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?

73 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8337 times:

What I want to see the most is what sort of animal this An-122KC is. But given the proponents request to extend the deadline, it seems the most we could expect are powerpoint presentations and computer generated images.

I suspect the An-112KC would look something like this.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stéphane Mutzenberg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roel Van Der Velpen - MST-Aviation



[Edited 2010-07-08 10:53:06]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8277 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 1):
What I want to see the most is what sort of animal this An-122KC is

My guess is an An-124-100 with GE-90-115B engines.

It seems EADS is submitting there bid today, and Boeing tomorrow.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...bmits-tanker-bid-boeing-to-follow/


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8224 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?


we will get some more details slowly on non critical aspects ... just enough to make assumptions and continue the A/B debate for another couple months.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7923 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?


we will get some more details slowly on non critical aspects ... just enough to make assumptions and continue the A/B debate for another couple months.

That's what I am hoping for.......         


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7875 times:

Boeing has now officially submitted their bid for the KC-X program. Like EADS, their bid is about 8,000 pages. Unlike EADS, Boeing submitted their bid without holding a dog and pony PR show.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...g-offers-kc-767-to-usaf/#more-3243

Boeing has released a press release;

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100709

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1303

So now the USAF has two official bids on the KC-X contract.

Will US Aerospace also submit a bid today?


User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4674 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7766 times:

First shot fired...
"Boeing says lower prices than last time"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boeing...-lower-rb-2237284099.html?x=0&.v=1



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 6):
First shot fired...
"Boeing says lower prices than last time"

Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price. If Boeing's bid price per unit is within about $5M of EADS, in either direction, they win, due to fuel and MilCon cost comparisons.

There is no doubt both OEMs have submitted offers that fully comply with all 372 mandatory requirements.

BTW, and off topic, today is my 40th annaversery of joining the USAF


User currently offlinevcjc From United States of America, joined May 2010, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7618 times:

EADS gave us a little more in the radar chart they put in this presentation:
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...-45-press-lunch-slides-7-08-10.pdf

Boeing's press release only had one line that struck me as new/different (although I don't know what it means):
"... a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100709


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5247 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7579 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price.

This to me is the entire reason why it was important to have a viable competitive situation with the bid. Without competition you simply do not get the best price and service. All I have ever wanted out of this process was a bid that did not view the government as a cow to be milked.

Based on your numbers (guesses I know) this will save ~$4.3 billion. Of course some of the savings is nullified by increased costs to keep the current fleet in the air but still that is a significant amount.


Tugg


(Edited to correct my numbers and other stuff.)

[Edited 2010-07-09 16:04:23]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Well, from the other thread, U.S. Aerospace's bid is in.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...am-2010-07-09?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Quote:
"LOS ANGELES, Jul 09, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- U.S. Aerospace, Inc. (OTCBB: USAE), a U.S. aerospace and defense contractor, today announced that it has submitted a bid to the U.S. Air Force to supply 179 aerial refueling tankers at $150 Million per plane, with a total bid package of $29.55 Billion including research and development costs."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price. If Boeing's bid price per unit is within about $5M of EADS, in either direction, they win, due to fuel and MilCon cost comparisons.

Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1763 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7492 times:

Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments? EADS' refusal to honor it's cost plus A400 contract seems like it would be a huge factor in the DODs evaluation. A companies history of extorting more money than it had agreed upon can't be a positive thing.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7471 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Unlike EADS, Boeing submitted their bid without holding a dog and pony PR show.

Apart from the Boeing sponsored event in Everett with a range of politicians and Boeing employees ?

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?

I think they would need to show they can actually meet the delivery timetable, without a working boom, I do not see this as being possible.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments?

No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?




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, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7339 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?

I think they would need to show they can actually meet the delivery timetable, without a working boom, I do not see this as being possible.

It looks like the delivery schedule could be a challange to all 3 bidders, not just Boeing.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments? EADS' refusal to honor it's cost plus A400 contract seems like it would be a huge factor in the DODs evaluation. A companies history of extorting more money than it had agreed upon can't be a positive thing.

I don't know if the USAF can look at the A-400 problems, or not. If they did, they would also have to look at the ITAF, JSDAF, and RAAF tanker delivery problems, Wedgetail, P-8, C-17, F/A-EA-18, Typhoon, etc. too.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7337 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments?

No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?

According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Also, I wouldn't put to mush confidence in EADS's new power point program. Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7207 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

I'd imagine that EADS would have to buy some currency hedges since much of their content is priced in EUR yet they will be paid in USD. I wonder what that does to the cost equation.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7149 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?

Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap. The USAF doesn't need to pay more in purchase price, cost per mile to fly, MilCon etc. They need some funds available in case they want more planes that actually fight instead of a Texaco in the Air. No eating their cake and eating it too,

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
I wonder what that does to the cost equation.

The USAF doesn't want to worry about that. Nor do politicians that will be providing the funding. That means that Airbus is going to have to take care of that in a manner that provides some level of confidence. The Euro hitting $1.50+ is possible so Airbus will probably have included that in their proposal.

As for providing information the fans of both suppliers in the COngress should be ensuring that at least the purchase price is know very quickly. No need for that to be a secret.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Did they really, interesting interpretation. The GAO never made ANY assessment of EITHER bid, it looked at the process, it has NO ability to do a technical analysis of any airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.

Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
I'd imagine that EADS would have to buy some currency hedges since much of their content is priced in EUR yet they will be paid in USD.

Most are in US$ these days, during Power8 when the sold off a lot of their plants, part of the deal was to get the products in US$ terms regardless of where it was being built/assembled.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap.

The KC-30 last round had a lower purchase prices, and we expect that to be 10-15% lower now since NG is not taking their mark-up.

Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?



no company produces a chart like that which doesn't put their product in better light than anything else... salesmen lie by omission.

I just look at it and smile... it's just for show... we'll probably see several more like it ho hum not worth an argument


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Did they really, interesting interpretation. The GAO never made ANY assessment of EITHER bid, it looked at the process, it has NO ability to do a technical analysis of any airframe.

I didn't say that, and you know it. The GAO did evaluate how the USAF treated the 2008 bids unequilly, and sided with Boeing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.

Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?
Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
no company produces a chart like that which doesn't put their product in better light than anything else... salesmen lie by omission.

kenban is correct, the PP was made by EADS to support the EADS bid over the Boeing bid. Industry analysts have said nothing about a chart released by EADS on Friday, and probibly won't even look at it until their work week begins tomorrow, this is a weekend. Those analysts that support EADS will say it is accurate, those that support Boeing will challange it, as well as the new 'spider chart'.

All three pages of the EADS PP presentation is built around the 'more, more, more concept', yet the compitition is built around the lowest overall price after complience with all 372 requirements. Complying with the requirements requires 100% of each one, not 120%.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap.

The KC-30 last round had a lower purchase prices, and we expect that to be 10-15% lower now since NG is not taking their mark-up.

Not according to the GAO. They said the NG price was some $10M more per unit than the Boeing offer, and the USAF applied 'adjustments' to Boeing and not NG.

I do agree that with NG now out of the picture that EADS-NA's pffered price can be some 10%-20% lower than the $184M per unit NG offered in 2008 (according to their own press conference when the withdrew back in April). That puts my estimate of the price for this year from EADS at $147.2M-$165.6M per unit. The USAF will add estimated fuel burn costs and MilCon costs to that number to arrive at a total estiminated cost per unit. Boeing would have already known this, and could (my guess) offer a price anywhere from about $140M-$150M per unit, before the USAF adjustements for fuel burn and MilCon.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Not according to the US Treasury. They are projecting a US 2010 economy growth of between 1%-2%. The growth of the US economy in 2009 was a dismal 1.4%, which was eaten up by the 2009 inflation rate of 1.5% when food and energy costs were applied.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Not according to the US Treasury. They are projecting a US 2010 economy growth of between 1%-2%. The growth of the US economy in 2009 was a dismal 1.4%, which was eaten up by the 2009 inflation rate of 1.5% when food and energy costs were applied

inflation is irrelevant when the "official" figures for determining if a recession is occurring, it makes a heck of a difference to your or my spending power though!


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6916 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Look towards unemployment, the deficit, the need to continue to protect those workers who lost jobs from the economy.

Recessions for individuals is different than the economists definition. From the taxpayers' point of view we are still in a recession.

And there have been discussions about the risk of the country having the economy fall again. Even talk of the risk of a real depression.

Against that reality for the people in this country the USAF need to keep the program a a minimum cost. Purchase price, MilCon, Hourly operating costs, etc. They need to do that not only because the public will not tolerate a flock of AF Generals with grandiose ideas, but also because money spent on the tankers will not be available for other planes, including fighters and bombers.

I can remember many years ago VW ran an ad campaign with just one word: Cheap. It didn't mean that the car was poorly made. It referenced purchase and operating costs. That's what we need fora tanker, or the risk increases significantly that the acquisition schedule gets stretched out very far into the future.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6916 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 20):
inflation is irrelevant when the "official" figures for determining if a recession is occurring, it makes a heck of a difference to your or my spending power though!

Correct, but that is a debate for a different forum. Perhaps the non-aviation board as a political debate?

But, back on topic, I am hoping both Boeing and EADS put out more info on their offers in the next few weeks.

Quoting vcjc (Reply 8):
EADS gave us a little more in the radar chart they put in this presentation:
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...0.pdf
Quoting vcjc (Reply 8):
Boeing's press release only had one line that struck me as new/different (although I don't know what it means):
"... a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/me...00709

Boeing says (on that web page);
"Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, the NewGen Tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of meeting or exceeding the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. It includes state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability. The NewGen Tanker also features an advanced KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system.

More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger and heavier Airbus A330 Tanker being offered by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs alone over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel. The Boeing tanker also will cost 15 to 20 percent less to maintain than the A330, which means it will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance costs.

Nationwide, the NewGen Tanker will support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states. That is tens of thousands more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe."


EADS (on its web page);

It compares the KC-767 to their A-330MRTT, as well as the Japanese and Italian KC-767s, but not the Australian KC-30, which they say their proposal is based on. They conveniently mix the systems of the RAF and RAAF tankers, which (combined) is not installed on any tanker they have built. They place every one of their proposals in green, and Boeing's proposals in yellow. In reality all proposals need to be in yellow, as none of the USAF requirements have been met yet by either OEM.

I veiw the EADS proposal as "more, more more" and the same as you will get from any used car salesman.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6742 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Well, from the other thread, U.S. Aerospace's bid is in.....

This is the AN-70 airframe with GENx engines. The company statements tend to indicate that the bid is non-complaint on a number of non-technical issues e.g. the ability to currently handle classified information.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I didn't say that, and you know it. The GAO did evaluate how the USAF treated the 2008 bids unequilly, and sided with Boeing.

The GAO recommendation to the USAF was to reopen discussions on 8 points with Boeing and NG, they never "sided" with any one party they are an independent body. They upheld 8 out of 100+ of Boeing claims, but never overturned the whole USAF process, they recommended that the 8 selected aspects of the selection process needed further discussion between the USAF and the vendors and get the USAF to either validate/invalidate their previous selection.

As we know the current bids are in the region of 8000 pages long, finding 8 points would not be that hard. The GAO decision was blown way out of proportion.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Industry analysts have said nothing about a chart released by EADS on Friday, and probibly won't even look at it until their work week begins tomorrow, this is a weekend. Those analysts that support EADS will say it is accurate, those that support Boeing will challange it, as well as the new 'spider chart'.

The areas that have been noted as being non-compliant on the Italian and Japanese tankers are areas even where Boeing has changed their submission. I have yet to see an industry analyst challenge this.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
All three pages of the EADS PP presentation is built around the 'more, more, more concept', yet the compitition is built around the lowest overall price after complience with all 372 requirements. Complying with the requirements requires 100% of each one, not 120%.

I suggest you listen to the Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale in this podcast, he describes how much more the KC-767 is over previous generations of tankers, the multi-role aircraft http://iagblog.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-09T11_53_21-07_00

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the GAO. They said the NG price was some $10M more per unit than the Boeing offer, and the USAF applied 'adjustments' to Boeing and not NG.

I suggest you then quote the exact words the GAO used, the GAO did not make that statement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the US Treasury.

"REAL GROSS domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010, according to the “advance” estimates of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) (chart 1 and table 1).1 In the fourth quarter of 2009, real GDP increased 5.6 percent."

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/05%20May/0510_gdpecon.pdf

The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, it is where the US Treasury gets its numbers from http://www.bea.gov/about/beameasures.htm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):

Look towards unemployment, the deficit, the need to continue to protect those workers who lost jobs from the economy.

The majority of the US deficient has nothing to do with balance of trade, it is because of the amount of foreign money that is being poured into the US for investments. An increasing US deficit actually reduces the unemployment rate, as more money is being invested into the economy,

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):

Against that reality for the people in this country the USAF need to keep the program a a minimum cost. Purchase price, MilCon, Hourly operating costs, etc. They need to do that not only because the public will not tolerate a flock of AF Generals with grandiose ideas, but also because money spent on the tankers will not be available for other planes, including fighters and bombers.

Well cancel the F-22 and F-35 then and just buy more F-16s and F-15s.............

Historically the USAF has always bought fewer more capably aircraft to replace a larger fleet of less capable aircraft, this is happening across the board, tankers, transports, fighters and trainers.

The USAF has historically not taken into account "MilCon, Hourly operating costs" costs. In this RFP they are not taking into account the "Hourly operating costs" or actual "MilCon" costs. Likewise they are not taking into account risk, or life cycle costs.



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, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The GAO decision was blown way out of proportion.

Not in the US it isn't.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the US Treasury.

"REAL GROSS domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010, according to the “advance” estimates of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) (chart 1 and table 1).1 In the fourth quarter of 2009, real GDP increased 5.6 percent."

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/05%20May/0510_gdpecon.pdf

The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, it is where the US Treasury gets its numbers from http://www.bea.gov/about/beameasures.htm

The statements of the BEA have been proven to be politicaly motivated (by Obama), the CBO, Treasury, and others strongly disagree with those numbers. A 5.6% increase (growth) in GDP (in any one quarter) is not possible when unemployment is at or near 10%.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
An increasing US deficit actually reduces the unemployment rate, as more money is being invested into the economy,

Oh really? The 2009 deficiet was a record $1.4 TRILLION, and this year we have already exceeded that, with 3 months to go in FY-2010. So, according to you, we should be over a 100% employment rate in the US. We are not as the current unemployment rate is 9.8% and another 10% who gave up looking for work.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
Well cancel the F-22 and F-35 then and just buy more F-16s and F-15s.............

Historically the USAF has always bought fewer more capably aircraft to replace a larger fleet of less capable aircraft, this is happening across the board, tankers, transports, fighters and trainers.

That is only partially correct. The USAF also looks at how many of each type aircraft are needed to support future (possible) conflicts. That is the numbers they really look at. The F-22 program is already canceled, anf the F-35 program involves to many political forces and customer countries, to be on the chop block yet. Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

MCRS-16 highlights the need for airlift, sealift, and tanker numbers in 3 "case studies", two of the three show we do not have enough tanker support with the current 474 USAF tankers plus 79 USMC KC-130s.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Sit...e/Mobility/MCRS-16_execsummary.pdf


25 zeke : It has been, compare the comments by people like Robert Gates and yourself, chalk and cheese. Never seen any such "proof", the BEA numbers are used b
26 KC135TopBoom : That is why SecDef Bob Gates canceled the 2008 KC-X contract. There is a difference between foreign investments and government deficets. The F-35 has
27 DEVILFISH : Thanks - that looks like more of a serious threat to the A400M.
28 KC135TopBoom : Actually, I don't see it as a serious competitor to either the A-330MRTT or KC-767. I don't know if the An-112-KC is a serious threat to the A-400, e
29 AirRyan : Referring to the Airbus FBW system which limits the pilots from extending the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope. This is the bigges
30 Post contains links zeke : Not at all, the words Robert Gates used are very differnt to yours. "It has now become clear that the solicitation and award process cannot be accomp
31 KC135TopBoom : A General out ranks a Colonel in the USAF. So, they will not ignor the wishes of their 'boss'. That is not going to happen in the USAF, or airline bu
32 kanban : has the process been written and tested? how do we know this? ... aside from prebid propaganda
33 Ken777 : Any one of the 8 would have been sufficient for the USAF to terminate that proposal program. Even if no one went to prison for those games there were
34 ThePointblank : However, on the Airbus system, if you take the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope, you will stall the aircraft, and possibility cras
35 kanban : Can the new booms be retrofitted to the KC135s? if we were to spend the time and money upgrading engines, cockpits, and zero timing life limited compo
36 Post contains links zeke : Where is the quote from the "General" ? None was attached with your original link or subsequent posts. The report you linked was published by two Col
37 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It was USAF BGen. Michelle Johnson speaking to the House Armed Services Air and Land Sub-committee on 28 April 2010. http://www.defensenews.com/story
38 Post contains links Tugger : Not quite yet. The F-22 production is still on going but there will not be any new orders. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-procurement-events
39 kanban : Actually the green primer (skydrol resistant finish or SRF) must be applied before assembly wing wet areas get a zinc chromate primer.... and all are
40 KC135TopBoom : Thanks for the update, and correction, Tugg You could be right, but the KC-135 does not use skydrol hydraulic fluid, it uses 5606 hydraulic fluid, wh
41 kanban : even though it's called SRF, I believe it's resistant to 5606 as well... I know we used on the 747-100's that were not Skyrol...however that was so l
42 KC135TopBoom : If the hydraulic fluid is red, it is 5606. Skydrol is clear, or mostly clear. 5606 is a Mil Spec hydraulic fluid and was used in most military aircra
43 Post contains links zeke : That link does not support your previous statement "That is a political statement released by a AF General a few months ago.", that was testimony. Pa
44 kanban : yup that was it and after a good nights sleep it seems to me TWA was the airline that wanted it versus Skydrol... and to convert all hydraulic system
45 Ken777 : Gates was politically polite in order to avoid being shamed in public for the games played by the USAF. Oh, I understand the problems. We are in 2 wa
46 ThePointblank : The F-35 doesn't have a trainer variant, pilots flying the F-35 need to train in a simulator. The A-10 doesn't have a trainer variant, pilots flying
47 XT6Wagon : From what I've read, many pilots train on actual A-10's without any sim having enough experience to not need any sim training. I don't know if all do
48 rheinwaldner : Per carried gallon fuel or per aircraft? In one case the KC-30 would be best in the other case some dirt cheap Russian tanker. IMO the 767 supporters
49 kanban : It's always nice to say one candidate an carry more fuel... however if the fuel isn't needed for the mission it's not a benefit.. the plane will eith
50 rheinwaldner : But what if it IS needed? What if not? A lot of if's you and I hardly can answer... Fully agree. The result however may not support the claim that th
51 XT6Wagon : But its not. You can do over 95% of the missions required of the KC135R without using a full fuel load on a KC135R. Since we are not going to replace
52 rheinwaldner : You look at the plane alone but we should look at the relation between consumed fuel and carried fuel for receiver aircrafts. That ROI so to speak sh
53 XT6Wagon : It should be but the A330 carries so much extra deadwieght that it doesn't. The KC-10 carries more fuel (356,000lbs), and does it by not only wieghin
54 rheinwaldner : I see those points. Problem is that converting civil airliners to tankers gives you not much choices today. On the other hand weight is not everythin
55 scbriml : But isn't the US military sized for that last 5%? When you do need it, you REALLY need it!
56 PITingres : No. What you need is a plan for dealing with that last 5%. You don't necessarily need to size for it. These discussions remind me of the SUV syndrome
57 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: It appears to be "Son of Frankentanker"..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-kc-767-newgen-tanker-design.html Quote: "In a huddle wit
58 11Bravo : Considering that the USAF has been conducting extensive tanker ops for decades with "small" tankers (except for a few KC-10), it seems likely that th
59 JayinKitsap : Bombs & missiles are heavy, make one new design with a slender fuse and one high capacity wing that works as a bomber /cruise missile launcher or
60 rheinwaldner : It is correct that the 767 and the A330 have too much fuselage width and wingspan to be ideal tankers. But they still eclipse easily the efficiency o
61 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Correct. The US military still has to operate on economy of scale. If you need to cover that extra 5% you add more tankers to the mission, which will
62 XT6Wagon : I'm talking about spending that $80+ million difference in cost per frame from the 737 to the 767 on building a "737" with new landing gear, wingbox,
63 kanban : Nice to see you back in the fray.... your experience was missed Now that would be something to see
64 KC135TopBoom : It would be an all new design, and cost billions to develope.
65 kanban : Yes I know... however it makes an interesting picture. I don't advocate even going there..
66 KC135TopBoom : For a new build tanker in today's economy, the cheapest way to go is convert/modify an exsisting airliner to a tanker.
67 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Though that might be so, the company stands by their "product" and confident that it meets requirements. Indeed, they are quite candid about their od
68 KC135TopBoom : In that same story, they US Aerospace/Antonov also said; "It hopes to receive a response allowing it to go forward in the contest, against the Boeing
69 Post contains images astuteman : Which would pretty much put paid to any of the indigenous US aerospace defence contractors, wouldn't it? Collectively, according to the GAO reports t
70 KC135TopBoom : Not for the C-17 program (since Boeing took it over), or the USN P-8A or F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. No, EADS is clearly not the only one. But they also do
71 ThePointblank : You forgot Wedgetail, and Japanese and Italian KC-767's.
72 Post contains links and images zeke : Stalling on all aircraft, be it a C152, 777, or an A380 will only happen when the critical angle of attack is exceeded. It has nothing to do with fli
73 KC135TopBoom : Those projects were clearly late. and I believe Boeing paid penalties on those contracts. The amount paid has been disputed, but in any event, Boeing
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
If New RFP, What Will NG / Eads Change To KC45? posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:26:04 by Keesje
Will Boeing Get A "bone" From Usaf? posted Sat Mar 1 2008 01:06:20 by KC135TopBoom
Will Russian Eads Ownership Hurt Tanker Prospects? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 17:03:39 by Lumberton
Will Boeing Come Up With An Improved KC767 Offer? posted Wed Nov 24 2004 16:02:07 by KEESJE
Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid posted Tue Apr 20 2010 14:57:35 by Yazoo
Boeing Begins A-10 Wing Assembly posted Mon Jan 18 2010 11:34:26 by Propilot83
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
Boeing Mulls OV-10 Restart posted Sun Feb 1 2009 18:10:39 by DEVILFISH
Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid posted Tue Apr 20 2010 14:57:35 by Yazoo
Boeing Begins A-10 Wing Assembly posted Mon Jan 18 2010 11:34:26 by Propilot83
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format