EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4150 times:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) announced today that it has submitted its Final Proposal Revision (FPR) for the U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker Program. The projected contract award is expected on or about Jan. 31, 2008 according to the Air Force.
I thought A.netters would be interested in this. This was found at the Northrop Grumman Home Page. Does less than 30 days give the government enough time to properly review this revised proposal?
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4115 times:
It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4093 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 3): It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
I believe the Boeing proposal will win, for a variety of reasons.
It will be viewed as the "home choice", though the KC-30A can legitimately claim the same. So while we will hear claims that "Boeing won only because it was American", those claims will be wrong.
It better meets the original (and likely current) needs of the USAF, even if the KC-30A is more capable overall. Just because an A330 does more then an A320 doesn't mean the A330 is always the better choice. And even though the actual purchase itself was dishonest, the fact was the USAF wanted it and wanted it enough to accept a crooked deal to get it.
The KC-30A will still be available for the USAF should they want something larger/more capable (for any role) thanks to the KC-30B and A330MRTT programs. If the KC-767 loses, then Boeing will close the line and the USAF will be in the position they are with the 707 - buying old passenger models and spending a mint refurbishing them for duty.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 3): It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.
Not while he is actively running for President.....
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4062 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that?
Bitterness and ignorance.
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american, made by an american company Boeing.
The KC-767 draws on parts manufactured around the world. It is not, in any way, shape or form "totally American".
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing.
While the KC-30A prototype was built in TLS, production units will be built in MOB. Yes, they will use parts manufactured in the EU, but so does the 767.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4045 times:
If Boeing win fair and square, then fair enough.
My recollection of the initial competition included Boeing "helping"the DOD to draw up the specification.
Surprise surprise, the specification looked like a B767.
A lot of folks have argued that the B767 is a better fit because it is more like the KC135 in capability. However, the requirement today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.
It all comes down to the DOD estimates of their future needs.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10): If Boeing win fair and square, then fair enough.
To some people, fair and square means one thing - "Boeing wins" or "EADS wins".
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10): A lot of folks have argued that the B767 is a better fit because it is more like the KC135 in capability. However, the requirement today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.
Hence the reason the USAF created the requirement less then 10 years ago.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4026 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker
Thanks. I'm getting tired of posting this rationale. Hopefully, the USAF will chose the path of least resistance (funding wise) and see the logic.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3964 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): The KC-767 draws on parts manufactured around the world. It is not, in any way, shape or form "totally American".
It's definately more american than the A330 is.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): While the KC-30A prototype was built in TLS, production units will be built in MOB. Yes, they will use parts manufactured in the EU, but so does the 767.
once again the A330 is still more EU than american
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 12): Thanks. I'm getting tired of posting this rationale. Hopefully, the USAF will chose the path of least resistance (funding wise) and see the logic.
If it comes down to a cost thing and the US chooses the 767 then everyone else needs to stay out of it, its their decision.
Suing the US for buying a US plane is like Suing British Airways because they ordered the A380
T773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 276 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 6): Not while he is actively running for President.....
You might be suprised. On the Republican debate tonight hosted by Fox News, Senator McCain mentioned the tanker deal not once but twice!
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3848 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10): My recollection of the initial competition included Boeing "helping"the DOD to draw up the specification.
Which begs the question: has the DOD come up with a new independant specification (what it wants to buy, unskewed by what a supplier wants to sell it)?
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3849 times:
Again I hope for the A330 not because it is an European aircraft but I really think it is more capable and the better choice.
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years. Sure the A330 is larger but it can also be used as a cargo aircraft as well and can be used instead of a C17 or C130 that are needed elsewhere. Also the A330 is chosen by some of the most important allies UK and Australia so you would have more commonality with them.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3842 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 16): Again I hope for the A330 not because it is an European aircraft but I really think it is more capable and the better choice.
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years. Sure the A330 is larger but it can also be used as a cargo aircraft as well and can be used instead of a C17 or C130 that are needed elsewhere. Also the A330 is chosen by some of the most important allies UK and Australia so you would have more commonality with them.
Unfortunately, more capabilities may not be the most important factor. Instead, cost, will most likely be the largest weighed factor.
The USAF is facing a reality of having to pay for a lot of very expensive programs in the next 2 decades. Sacrifices may have to be made, so as not to break the bank.
Even if the 767 is a less capable aircraft, it may be wiser to purchase it on the fact that it saves the USAF millions of dollars in the short term. Allowing them to continue funding the F-22, F-35, C-17, C-5 modernization, C-27, all new satellites around 2015, more UAVs, CSAR-X, Tanker-X, base modernization and revitalization, etc... That's A LOT of money to be spent, compromises are bound to happen.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3838 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 16): The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years.
For you maybe, but you're not the one who is going to be purchasing them.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker
The bigger question is: Why bother going through a competitive process if you already know which product you're going to buy? Waste of money and time; the KC-767 could be in production a lot earlier if this possible charade wasn't being pulled off.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3787 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 15): Which begs the question: has the DOD come up with a new independant specification (what it wants to buy, unskewed by what a supplier wants to sell it)?
The DoD always works with suppliers to draft specifications. They have to, since the DoD doesn't know what is possible and what isn't. And the suppliers can offer alternatives and suggestions to make the desired product cheaper or more effective.
It's no different then airlines working with the airframe manufacturers to develop new planes or new variants of existing planes.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3763 times:
QUESTION: Does it really make sense to buy the KC-45A, assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future? I realize it's been said that what's currently affordable will likely drive which airplane is selected, but in the long run won't that prove to be more expensive? With the KC-45 we're going to buy now and pay later. With the KC-30 we might more accurately buy now and save later. Doesn't that make more sense?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3726 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21): Does it really make sense to buy the (KC-767), assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future?
Note - the KC-45 is the designation of the winning frame. Boeing's offer is/was the KC-767.
The advantage of buying the KC-767 now is that it meets today's requirements. The USAF is not intending the first KC-45 buy to be the only one. And since the KC-30B/A330MRTT program is guaranteed to continue regardless of whether or not the KC-30A wins the KC-45 RFP, it will remain an option for the USAF to meet "tomorrow's" requirements if the KC-767 alone is not enough. Also, it will have a shot at other programs, including possible/eventual replacements of the E-3, E-6, and E-8 platforms.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3673 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21): QUESTION: Does it really make sense to buy the KC-45A, assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future? I realize it's been said that what's currently affordable will likely drive which airplane is selected, but in the long run won't that prove to be more expensive? With the KC-45 we're going to buy now and pay later. With the KC-30 we might more accurately buy now and save later. Doesn't that make more sense?
So if your car dies, and you need a new one, but have a stretched budget... do you go buy the New hybrid fuel car to save on gas, or do you buy the cheaper sedan that you can afford?
Come'on now, you're an adult. Presumably you know what it's like to know the difference between what you want and what you can afford.
-UH60
25 Columba: If I am planning to keep the car for 30 years I would buy the new hybrid fuel car, if I only want to keep it for 5 years I buy the car I can afford n
26 Playloud: You think they will only have these planes for 30 years?
28 UH60FtRucker: So you would buy a hybrid car at the expense of not being able to afford other critical items, in your life? look, the whole point is that the USAF i
29 Captoveur: I know someone in the SPO. Don't look for a decision before summer no matter what NG or Boeing say.
30 Columba: No, all I am saying is that if I make a long term investment be it a car or in this case an airplane instead of saving a few bucks I buy the better v
31 KC135TopBoom: How many campaign dollars does he get from NG (since he cannot take any from EADS)? What happened to his commitment to the "troops"? Okay, Stitch. I'
32 Stitch: Nothing. My comments referred to the original lease deal. I was just noting that the USAF wanted the KC-767 then - even with a lease deal that was no
33 KC135TopBoom: You are absolutly correct, the USAF (or any other US Military Branch) doesn't have the money it needs to do all the things that HAVE to be done. With
34 F27Friendship: come one, stop generalizing. It doesn;t make future discussions any better. There are many countries that bought American and still are buying Americ
35 KC135TopBoom: There are those people in the world who think of the EU and France as the same country, some of those people are Americans. Sometimes even me. Remembe
36 AirRyan: Many including myself have speculated that NG (via EADS via Airbus) will offer a bid with their KC-330 at or below the cost of the KC-767ADV - in tha
37 Stitch: The DoD has said that contract price alone will not determine the winner because too many times in the past they have been burned by choosing the "lo
38 Par13del: And this is going to change anytime soon? The Lakota was a off the shelf purchase, and even in doing so they stated that changes had to be made to th
39 Lumberton: How would that be dishonest? There are more aircraft--far more--involved in this deal. If they low ball the bid on the first 80 or so fixed price, st
40 KC135TopBoom: The USAF can always look at bring back the EF-111s, as they are in storage, not dismantling for the RAAF F-111 support programs. The EA-18G program i
41 Stitch: Well it is one thing when the customer (the DoD) starts filing scores of "scope changes" that drive up the price. If the contract says "provide X" an
42 KC135TopBoom: Those cost increases are usually accounted for, along with the traditional 5%-10% profit in the contract. Years ago, there was a contract vetting pro
43 Stitch: Or endorse them over to Congresscritter's re-election funds.
44 Halls120: I guess I didn't include enough icons in my post. Many EU countries buy American. Just like we buy more than a few EU products. My comment was direct
45 Bennett123: Some people seem to assume that the USAF can not afford to buy the plane to do the job specified. However, I see not reason why the spec should not in
46 KC135TopBoom: They do, in the budgeted amount. For example the KC-45A program is budgeted at $40B US for all 179 airplanes (which includes the cost of the four pro
47 F27Friendship: we are already a much larger economy. We do have problems coordinating properly and it takes ages before we all alligned our interests. However, bein
48 KC135TopBoom: That is correct. My point was only directed at the 2018 Bomber program, which is the F-15E replacement. Yes, the Chinese economy is growing and will
49 F27Friendship: nevertheless, we still have retained a significant amount of real producing factories and have our own "low-cost" zone in the new eastern EU states.
50 KC135TopBoom: That is the best and smartest statement I have ever read on a.net. Very well said, sir.
52 Columba: Well Germany will buy Global Hawks and Predators soon. I also wish if they would buy some C17s but sadly that won´t happen.
53 KC135TopBoom: Is Germany getting the version of the Preditor that carries missiles? That is a real crowd pleaser. Okay, okay, that's the old SAC warrior coming out
54 F27Friendship: well, that's quite an interesting thing, as I believe according to German law, any act of violence by it's military needs to be approved by parliamen
55 KC135TopBoom: That seems like a rather broad restriction. Unless the German Military Forces can immediately use self defense if attacked (like what almost happened
56 Ulfinator: New Report stating that the 767-200ER (basis of KC-767 proposal) is more fuel efficient than the A330-200 (basis of KC-30 proposal). Should be an inte
57 KC135TopBoom: Yeah, that report is already being torn apart by the KC-30 supporters.
58 Columba: What do you expect Boeing to say. Sure their spin the numbers their way as Airbus and Northrop Gruman are doing,, too. Every company will say their p
60 Columba: It is for the parliament. The reason why we don´t want to have the parliament in control has to do with the history of Germany. We now want a milita
61 Stitch: Seattle Times aerospace reporter Dominic Gates had a large article in today's Business section. Airbus takes Boeing fight to U.S. soil http://seattlet
62 KC135TopBoom: The assembly of any airplane concerns me if you have to ship the parts across the ocean. Corosion could be a problem for these airplane parts and sect
63 Zeke: Maybe the plan to use this Besides, it would not take a month for a ship to cross the pond.
64 KC135TopBoom: I'll have to wait to see the picture at home. It doesn't show up here at work. You are right, it should not take a month. A ship steaming the (approxi
65 Halls120: Barging airplane parts across the Atlantic is a far different proposition than carrying them across the English channel, especially in the winter. yo
66 Stitch: With the USAF now formally committing to build the 767-400ER that was meant for the E-10A program, I wonder if the USAF is now considering using the 7
67 BHMBAGLOCK: Add Mercedes to that and I think VW still does as well - they are currently looking for a production site in the South also. Their bigger problem wit
68 Seefivein: maybe this is why they want to make a decesion by the end of January...
70 Stitch: Alabama is a "Right to Work" state so even if the IAM is successful in getting a union certified at the EADS facility, membership is not mandatory no
71 EBJ1248650: I believe only one 767-400ER is being built or has been built for the Air Force. I don't recall what its role is supposed to be. 767-400ER might be t
72 BHMBAGLOCK: Mostly in bowling alleys. Seriously though, yes, but being a right to work state definitely levels the playing field a bit by giving the employer a "
74 BHMBAGLOCK: Non right to work state - Union has the "nuclear" option of striking. Since the company has to hire through the union by law it is a very difficult t
75 KC135TopBoom: The B-767-400ER was suppose to be part of the (now cancelled) E-10A program. The E-10 would have eventually replaced the RC/EC-135, E-3, and USN E-6.
76 F27Friendship: I'm a bit shocked by this system, as it gives either the companies, or the unions overwhelming influence. On the one hand your employer shouldn't be
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6352 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
