Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award  
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4318 posts, RR: 28
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20915 times:

Since the other thread is approaching 350 posts and the focus of discussion has shifted to the appeal by Boeing, I figured I'd start a new thread that discusses the appeal.

From FI:

Quote:
A separate Northrop business unit helped the USAF develop the evaluation formula, which was likely to allow Northrop's tanker team to spot - and respond - to the changes much sooner,



Quote:
Northrop's larger KC-30 tanker bid suffered under the previous formula for lacking ramp space to complete certain missions. The changes resolved that problem by inventing ramp capacity that does not exist in the real world, arbitrarily giving the Northrop team a boost

[emphasis added]

I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-usaf-decision-to-buy-airbus.html


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
329 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20907 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

How about adding the next paragraph as well, the delivery date was moved back by 12 weeks as the RAAF asked for some changes, this has been reported on a.net before.

"An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented"."

The US met with Australian officials about Project Air 5402, the KC-30B project...what I am unsure of is if they also talked about the extensive delays with wedgetail.

"Australia is "very happy" with work by Europe's EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) on its new Airbus A330 refueling tankers, and has shared its insights with the U.S. Air Force, which is due to pick a winner soon in its own tanker program, a top Australian military official said on Thursday."

"Australia picked EADS and its A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) over Boeing Co's (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 767 tanker in 2004."

""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."

"Reynolds said Australian officials had briefed U.S. officials "extensively" about their experiences with the EADS tanker program as part of the U.S. Air Force's evaluation of competing bids in its own program."

"EADS will deliver the first of five Australian tankers in early 2009, said Guy Hicks, spokesman for EADS North America.

That date is a few months later than expected due to changes in the tanker, requested by Australia, a source familiar with the program said."

from http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...er=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

No doubt the US also talked to Japan and Italy, no doubt the extensive delays on those programs were mentioned.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I also thought this comment was very enlightening:

Quote:
scrutiny of Northrop's claims also is starting to grow...

...Northrop defended its KC-X bid in a recent press release as a low-risk solution, citing Airbus's plan to deliver tankers to the Royal Australian Air Force "on schedule" in early 2009.

A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

It might have been even more enlightening if you'd have added the very next sentence in the article, which said..

Quote
"An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented".

 scratchchin   Smile

Regards


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4318 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20886 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 2):

A nicely set trap on my part!  Wink

Wasn't Boeing's delivery delays to the Italians also related to "customer requested changes" to which so many had scoffed?

By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF. And to that, I note both of you esteemed gentlemen did not, as well, add the REST of the article's quote attributed to the Australian Defense spokesperson:

Quote:
She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

[emphasis added]



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 20866 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
Wasn't Boeing's delivery delays to the Italians also related to "customer requested changes" to which so many had scoffed?

No that was Japan, they wanted an FAA certified aircraft. Despite that changes, they were still late, paying US$82,000 a day in late fees.

The Italian aircraft were contracted for delivery starting in 2005, now expected to be delivered 3-4 years late. They had flutter issues with the wing pods (which are not on the Japanese tankers).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

Nor were they supposed to yet, the original time frame was Q4 2008. But you do have a few A310MRTTs flying about.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

Of course it carries risk, but as I pointed out in my previous reply

""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."

"Reynolds said Australian officials had briefed U.S. officials "extensively" about their experiences with the EADS tanker program as part of the U.S. Air Force's evaluation of competing bids in its own program."



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8225 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 20823 times:

I've no doubt that the Air Force knew that all hell would break loose when the award was announced and I fully expect them to be prepared to defend all issues. Those mentioned in the opening post from FI are two that will generate a lot of heat and it will be interesting to see how the AF handles these issues. There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

In reality, the entire issue has only been out in the public for a little over a week and, in an intense political year, is only going to grow over the next few months. Judgements based on what is currently public may well need to be revised as new issues come out. Probably won't be as lurid as a sex scandal of a prominent politician, but those tend to end too quickly these days.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 20780 times:

Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment. The time for Boeing to have said something about the changes in the criteria were while the bids were still out - it's not as if the USAF said "here's the RFP but don't bother asking any questions."

The GAO is going to come up with a scathing conclusion in regards to Boeing's protest and it's only going to make them look all the more foolish, even more so than losing KC-X in the first place and that's saying a lot! Good job, McNerney you whining Ivy League schmuck! Big grin


User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 20760 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
I've no doubt that the Air Force knew that all hell would break loose when the award was announced and I fully expect them to be prepared to defend all issues.

If the EADS proposal had been just marginally better in performance, I doubt the Air Force would have picked it due to the intense scrutiny choosing a non US supplier for a $40 billion contact is bound to generate. Nortrup/Grumman is definitlely American, and the tanker supposedly will have 58% US content, but still many people will consider it to be a foreign aircraft.


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 20734 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment.

AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

I still think part of the appeal will have to do with McCain getting the USAF to change its RFP(this being an election year involving McCain just adds to it). (I know, AR, Elvis is still serving the drinks  Smile  drunk  )

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20697 times:



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 8):
AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

Because if you are familiar with CSAR-X thus far you will know where the USAF has gone out of their way to keep the HH-47 even able to compete - they stretched the requirement for it to be airworthy following shipment in a C-5/C-17 and they completely ignored the long term cost benefits of the maintenance equation that favor the LM bid in the US-101. There is a reason as to why Air Force Chief of Staff General Moseley as well as the majority of the industry experts were surprised by the HH-47 award - the US-101 was the expected winner.

Common sense also tells me that with all the time that has transpired since will only further benefit the US-101 with the combat proven experience of the British Merlins in Iraq - as Jackonicko has pointed out the British who use both a very similar version of the HH-47 as well as the Merlin which is very similar to the US-101 prefer the Merlin over the H-47 for duties most closely associated with the CSAR mission for a variety of numerous reasons.

Let's keep in mind that the H-47 is a design origins go back to the 1950's when not only did engineers not have computer aided design software in which to design these aircraft, they had to use slide rules because calculators were not even quite available yet! The USAF expects to operate these aircraft well into the late 2040's at the least - they don't need to be operating a near century old design towards the end of the CSAR-X's expected service lives.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20688 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along - you simply just do not bite the hand that feeds you by suing for employment. The time for Boeing to have said something about the changes in the criteria were while the bids were still out - it's not as if the USAF said "here's the RFP but don't bother asking any questions."

The GAO is going to come up with a scathing conclusion in regards to Boeing's protest and it's only going to make them look all the more foolish, even more so than losing KC-X in the first place and that's saying a lot! Good job, McNerney you whining Ivy League schmuck! 

If a Boeing unit were the ones who helped create the evaluation formula for a USAF RFP that ended up favoring Boeing, you would be screaming your head off about a conflict of interest.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 20657 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Wow, weak arguments on Boeing's side and I really expect the USAF to pull their previous award for CSAR-X and give it to LM as they should have all along -



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 8):
AR, why do you think the USAF has any LEGAL right to do what you are suggesting? If they did say to Boeing that they are canx all contract due to them protesting, Boeing would have their ass. As they say "this is business not personal".

AirRyan, I know you won't believe this, but Boeing may very well have a case here. Only the lawyers and politicians will decide if Boeing's case is weak, or not. Whether they win or not, with the USAF, is another question.

But, are you saying the USAF also needs to cancel the C-17 contracts? After all, that makes about as much sence as cancelling the CSAR-X contract, as you suggested.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Because if you are familiar with CSAR-X thus far you will know where the USAF has gone out of their way to keep the HH-47 even able to compete - they stretched the requirement for it to be airworthy following shipment in a C-5/C-17 and they completely ignored the long term cost benefits of the maintenance equation that favor the LM bid in the US-101.

Hmmmm, CSAR-X has gone through 2 GAO investigations, and Boeing still has the contract. I guess the new build HH-47Fs are the correct choice?

The USAF HH-47F is based on the US Army MH-47G. It can carry 28,000lbs of cargo up to 170 knots. The HH-47F/G has a smaller disc area than the HH-71A/B, 2800ft2 for the HH-47(disc loading is 9.5lb/ft2) , and 2992ft2 for the HH-71 (disc loading is 11.01lb/ft2). The HH-71 only carries 12,000lbs of cargo up to (never exceed speed) 167 knots. The HH-47 has a service ceiling of 18,500' vs. the HH-71 service ceiling of only 15,000'.

Which one is more useful in mountainous rescues, or resupplies?

There have been four helicopter compititions recently:
VHM-X, for the USMC, won by the CH-53K
VXX , for the USMC, won by the VH-71A/B
CSAR-X, for the USAF, won by the HH-47F
CVLSP, for the USAF, USMC, USN, USCG, and US Army, has not been awarded, yet.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 20521 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10):
If a Boeing unit were the ones who helped create the evaluation formula for a USAF RFP that ended up favoring Boeing, you would be screaming your head off about a conflict of interest.

But Boeing should have known this as soon as they got the RFP and they had numerous opportunities since then to converse with the USAF and discuss any posible differences they may have had with the formula; i.e. I don't think they had any problems with the formula until they lost the bid.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

For every politican that is speaking out against this bid there are ones that are either for it or at least neutral enough to let the deal stand - Pelosi and the 110th Congress just haven't shown an ability to get much of anything done and thereby I just don't see they possessing the capability of breaking up this deal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
AirRyan, I know you won't believe this, but Boeing may very well have a case here. Only the lawyers and politicians will decide if Boeing's case is weak, or not. Whether they win or not, with the USAF, is another question.

The spin has to stop somewhere for the sake of national defense alone: between the CSAR-X and KC-X the USAF has exposed serious flaws in our defense aquisition and believe it or not, these aircraft desipite the Democrats who want to stand in the way of capitalism will eventually make it to the Wing!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
But, are you saying the USAF also needs to cancel the C-17 contracts? After all, that makes about as much sence as cancelling the CSAR-X contract, as you suggested.

I don't remember saying anything about the C-17, the last I heard was there is a differnce in opinion between the Pentagon and Congress as to how many more C-17's the USAF needs. As for CSAR my only argument with the USAF conducting it is if they were to buy the HH-47 to do it when the USArmy are the ones who have been using those helo's for the last 40+ years - what's next, the USArmy is going to buy F-22's?! As Spock would say, "that's illogical."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Hmmmm, CSAR-X has gone through 2 GAO investigations, and Boeing still has the contract. I guess the new build HH-47Fs are the correct choice?

Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The USAF HH-47F is based on the US Army MH-47G. It can carry 28,000lbs of cargo up to 170 knots. The HH-47F/G has a smaller disc area than the HH-71A/B, 2800ft2 for the HH-47(disc loading is 9.5lb/ft2) , and 2992ft2 for the HH-71 (disc loading is 11.01lb/ft2). The HH-71 only carries 12,000lbs of cargo up to (never exceed speed) 167 knots. The HH-47 has a service ceiling of 18,500' vs. the HH-71 service ceiling of only 15,000'.

Despite the contrary the entire world is not necessarily in a mountainous environment at high altitude and besides, I'll take the bird with three engines over one with just two for high altitude ops any day of the week. If I'm looking for a horse to ride into harms way I'd want the one that offers me the range and speed I require but does so with the least amount of observability and that's the US-101 hands down.

I remember in Kosovo where you could hear a Chinook from around a mountain slinging a load long before you ever even saw the aircraft, that's not what I want coming to "rescue" me should happen to ever need a dustoff behind enemy lines. The only thing the HH-47 has going for it is that it's ready now which isn't too terribly hard to imagine since the USArmy has been using for the past 40+ years - but if I'm the USAF looking for a bird to ride for the next 30+ years, would I want the current generation of technology in the US-101 or one that's already got 40+ years of "experience" under it's belt?

Frankly, I think the argument as to which one can perform the job better than the other is a rather feckless endeavor and so the argument to me should come down to which aircraft can be operated more efficiently and effectively over the next 30+ years that the aircraft are expected to be able to operate in - the US-101 wins hands down in that respect.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 20512 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

When I was in Keflavik the PennANG brought 2 Ch-47's for a Viking Thunder via a C-5 with us AWACS guys helping them it took over 12 hours to get the swash plates, gearing and the rotors hung with a big crew doing the work to be airborne.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 20512 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

I have seen nothing to suggest that it should have been delivered by now.

From the FI link you gave:

"A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule. She also notes that the tanker modifications to the KC-30B airframe are "extensive" and even the delayed delivery in early 2009 carries risk.

An EADS spokesman counters, however, that Airbus was not at fault for the delays, which was "requested by the customer because of some changes they implemented".

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
A spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Defense, however, points out that the early 2009 date is actually several months behind the original schedule

As one would expect. You only told the bit of the story that suited your purposes, it seems to me.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
""We're very happy with it. All the testing is going well," said Mark Reynolds, counselor for defense materiel at the Australian embassy in Washington, when asked about progress on his country's tanker program."



User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4318 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20442 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 14):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 3):
By the way, let's not be too quick to run to EADS' defense since they still have not delivered the airplane to the RAAF.

I have seen nothing to suggest that it should have been delivered by now.

My comment was not intended to suggest that the airframe was already late. If my other post came across that way then my sincere apologies to you and to Zeke. My comment was intended to imply that between now and when it is finally delivered (or scheduled to be delivered) a lot can go wrong. So it would be pointless to argue, as many have, that the Airbus tanker is so much less riskier than the Boeing tanker because the Boeing tanker has encountered delays to other customers whereas the Airbus tanker hasn't (yet). As we have seen, it is delayed and the delay could become lengthier in the next year.

[Edited 2008-03-15 15:28:24]


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20434 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 13):
When I was in Keflavik the PennANG brought 2 Ch-47's for a Viking Thunder via a C-5 with us AWACS guys helping them it took over 12 hours to get the swash plates, gearing and the rotors hung with a big crew doing the work to be airborne.

Of course it took 12 hrs...they were Guard...they can only work one hour in seven! LOL

Seriously, during source selection...the USAF sent teams to observe each vendor's ability to tear down and build up their aircraft in the prescribed time and surprising at it seems, Boeing was able to meet the 3 hrs requirement. This issue is reported to have been a question in the protest phase and dismissed by GAO.

Of course it is important to note the aircraft BA offers for the CSAR-X is NOT the same old "slick" acft that typical army line units fly, but an adaptation of the newest SOF variant...the MH-47G, which has many improvements designed to reduce tear down/build up time such as quick disconnects for oil/hyd systems, QD fasteners and a reduction in the total numbers of fasteners (nuts, bolts, widgets etc) found on previous models.


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 20369 times:

One problem with Boeing appealing about the decision is that, when NG threatened to withdraw unless changes were made, Boeing- so I am led to believe - didn't object.

Why? Because they don't have an aircraft the size of the A330. The 767 is more A310 and the 777 is bigger.

Could this be a point the USAF/GAO raise?


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3745 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 20262 times:

The article states 2 reasons for the Boeing appeal.

The first being that the formula to evaluate mission performance was changed at the last minute 'with the help of Northrop Grumman', and the second is that the USAF failed to consider Boeing's experience in making commercial airliners.

"Secondly, Boeing claims that the USAF refused to give proper credit to the company's experience making commercial airliners.

The USAF's method for evaluating programme risk discounted Boeing's experience based on commercial airliner programmes, such as the 777-200LR and the 737-900ER, McGraw says.
"

I don't get that one...

Does it mean that Airbus/EADS is utterly inept at developing and building succesful airliners? Or was it a shot at NG?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 20148 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20123 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
There is an "appearance" developing that NG/Airbus "helped" manage the bid process and evaluation - I believe that will become an issue as this issue grows.

This alone will be enough for Congress to reaward the contract.

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information

Let's put things straight here. the 2002 KC-767 'lease deal' is not, and never was the KC-X program. That program was throwen together as a bone to Boeing after 9/11 sales losses. Boeing was involved in thta deal, and they paid heavierly for that.

People went to jail over that one.

Boeing stayed above boards and stayed public in the KC-X program.

Apparently, the USAF did not learn anything from the 2002 tanker debacal, as they turned around and did the same thing in KC-X, but this time with NG.

These two screw ups are not related.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20122 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 18):
I don't get that one...

Does it mean that Airbus/EADS is utterly inept at developing and building succesful airliners? Or was it a shot at NG?

Well EADS did have the A380.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
But Boeing should have known this as soon as they got the RFP and they had numerous opportunities since then to converse with the USAF and discuss any posible differences they may have had with the formula; i.e. I don't think they had any problems with the formula until they lost the bid.

Perhaps it wasn't apparent until late in the game. After all, Boeing claims they were told that greater offload than the 767 provides wouldn't improve their bid.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 19):

Ah! you obviously mean something like the way Boeing 'managed' the original bid process of course, right?
Hmm! funny how you don't mention that little bit of 'unimportant' information

Are you claiming that is justification for an NG subsidiary's participation in the criteria development process. One would have thought the USAF would have learned a lesson.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20067 times:

I keep reading these posts and can't tell what 90% of them have to do with the protest. Boeing has made a very simple basic claim that after they offered the 767 platform to meet the original RFP requirement for 135 replacements the Airforce decided they liked the idea of larger, more capable plane. Boeing says that if the AF would have said what they wanted in the first place, they could have offered the 777.
Maybe they lost the deal in part for being arrogant and rude and stupid in their dealings with the government, but acquiring new tankers isn't supposed to be based on warm and fuzzy feelings. It's supposed to be based on getting the best deal for the money. And the best deal isn't just the best hardware for the price, but the deal that benefits the US taxpayer. It's not bogus to include jobs and the benefits of having a domestic corporation controlling the production of that important a program, and it's not bogus to claim that the AF should have known what they wanted before they asked for proposals.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 20064 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
As for CSAR my only argument with the USAF conducting it is if they were to buy the HH-47 to do it when the USArmy are the ones who have been using those helo's for the last 40+ years - what's next, the USArmy is going to buy F-22's?! As Spock would say, "that's illogical."

Illogical?

The USAF flies more than 100 H-60's, and the Navy flies several hundred H-60's...but wait, the US Army flies more than a thousand H-60's so according to your "logic"...the USAF/USN shouldn't be flying these "army" acft huh?

What of HMMWV's, body armor and weapons that all branches share with the US Army? Do you really think it's a logical argument to say it's a bad thing for the tax payer when the govt reduces cost of ownership by exploiting economies of scale for ONE product (H-47), and ignore other examples of this sound operational and financial discipline used for many other products shared by all services?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Ahh, no Boeing does not still have the contract - the DOD IG is currently inspecting that whole 3 hour time requirement for the POS to even get airworthy again following transport on USAF C-5/C-17 and once their audit is completed by the end of March, the USAF will begin deliberating again on who to award CSAR-X to on an all-new from the ground up selection process.

This is correct, the USAF has not yet issued the CSAR-X contract...however, the IG investigation is to focus on how the CSAR-X requirements were established, and what changes were made during development of these requirements. The USAF is currently conducting the source selection effort for RFP # 5 and the decision is independent of the IG investigation and should be known this summer.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Despite the contrary the entire world is not necessarily in a mountainous environment at high altitude and besides, I'll take the bird with three engines over one with just two for high altitude ops any day of the week. If I'm looking for a horse to ride into harms way I'd want the one that offers me the range and speed I require but does so with the least amount of observability and that's the US-101 hands down.

Ryan, you've made the claim of the all powerful 3 engined EH-101 before on another thread. Fact is there are high altitude areas on the planet and the CSAR forces want to be able to operate safely and effectively at these high and often hot locations. The USAF has already lost one HH-60 helicopter with fatalities operating in Afghanistan when it got in trouble at high altitude, and we all saw the dramatic loss of another USAF HH-60 rolling down the side of Mtn Hood during a rescue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfJDq_I1HA

The combined power of the EH-101 engines generate a total of 5760 SHP...the two H-47G engines generate 9800 SHP. The EH-101 is NOT another H-53 "Echo" who's engines generate more then 13000SHP. The 101 is a fine machine but it was designed to operate in low and cool European environments, for it's European customers...it was not designed to serve in high/hot environments and does not have anywhere near the lift and horsepower of the 53 Echo or the 47 Golf.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Frankly, I think the argument as to which one can perform the job better than the other is a rather feckless endeavor and so the argument to me should come down to which aircraft can be operated more efficiently and effectively over the next 30+ years that the aircraft are expected to be able to operate in - the US-101 wins hands down in that respect.

Make no mistake...the KC-X and CSAR-X source selection aren't jobs program dreamed up by politicians, and those with intellectual integrity do not preach the love for one specific vendor over another with no supporting evidence of claims of such superiority. The work of supporting the troops and keeping them alive is deadly serious and sadly, has been paid for in blood time and time again when machines have been pressed into service in situations they were not designed for.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 20064 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
Perhaps it wasn't apparent until late in the game.

Again I'm reminded of college where I when I were the student it was my responsibility to make sure I had the material and understood it and not necessarily the other way around.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
After all, Boeing claims they were told that greater offload than the 767 provides wouldn't improve their bid.

That isn't exactly how the USAF worded it...

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
Boeing says that if the AF would have said what they wanted in the first place, they could have offered the 777.

Boeing couldn't have offered the 777 because even if it would have met the RFP it would not have been competitive on terms of price and risk.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
And the best deal isn't just the best hardware for the price, but the deal that benefits the US taxpayer. It's not bogus to include jobs and the benefits of having a domestic corporation controlling the production of that important a program, and it's not bogus to claim that the AF should have known what they wanted before they asked for proposals.

But that is not capitalism nor how it works - by law the USAF was strictly prohibited from even taking such socioeconomic factors as jobs and such into account when deciding upon a winner.


25 KC135TopBoom : Even USAF said proce was not a consideration in the KC-45 program. If it was, they could not choise an airplane that costs $40M more than the competi
26 EPA001 : I thought that a B777-LRF design would be impossible for this bid because GE was part of the NG-EADS-GE bid. And since they have the exclusive rights
27 Post contains links and images AirRyan : But there is one simple aspect to the H-47 that your not ackonowledging: First, there's the fact that that the USAF has already once earlier said "no
28 Atmx2000 : The entire problem with the jobs measure is that it doesn't specify actual man-years of labor required, which determines the value of said job. Nothi
29 Jackonicko : Curt, If the USAF want a heavylift special forces support helicopter to allow them to 'compete' with the 160th, and if they need a capacity greater th
30 Highlander0 : THREAD CREEP I love the Merlin, but the winch has to be moved to prevent people smacking their heads on the sponson- the Danish wouldn't take their Me
31 Art : Some a.netters. Does anyone else see Boeing winning their appeal? I'm referring to the appeal itself, not to the selection by the USAF being thwarted
32 Halls120 : It's possible. Especially if the Air Force did what was alleged in another thread: If the above is indeed true, I see a new RFP in the future. Regard
33 Alien : What you don't get is the jobs not created. Sure maybe most of the 767 workers move to the 787 line. But if the 767 ultimately gets selected then the
34 Post contains links and images Zeke : Totally and absolutely false, with RR engines on one, it is only just over 50%.
35 Rheinwaldner : I doubt that the 777 could offer its great capability for the same money. The A332 platform offered much more capability for nearly the same price as
36 Curt22 : Very deployable??? I believe you mentioned being located somewhere near RAF Benson....If so, have you had a chance to see the four each 1.5 metric to
37 Curt22 : Can Boeing win? This is how the "Creep" began...LM and SAC won their first protest of CSAR-X on ONE of about two dozen complaints. This one point tha
38 Jackonicko : Curt, I watched them break one down to load it into a C-17, mate! I've only seen the reassembly on video, but that looked quick, too. I have good frie
39 Post contains links RedFlyer : The WSJ has an article out this morning on the Boeing appeal. Some items of note: There's also the issue of the Air Force tweaking the Northrop-design
40 Post contains images Francoflier : That one cracked me up! So, European taxpayers are allegedly paying for the USAF tankers now? The one thing they should not do is bring an unsettled
41 Post contains images Vzlet :
42 Post contains images Astuteman : So Boeing consider (therefore worst case..) that the bids were pretty much even, whilst A-net opposers of the KC30 continue to convince themselves th
43 Trex8 : and during the selection process both primes had to agree that any additional costs which may be incurred by the primes from the results of the WTO d
44 Curt22 : I heard about the self deployment to Iraq as well, no small feat for any helicopter to be sure... if memory serves, this effort took the better part
45 RedFlyer : It's saying that Boeing's proposal came in at $108.04 billion whereas NG/EADS' came in at $108.01 billion. I guess the question is: are those purely
46 Zeke : That should be interesting, that is what caused a number of Boeing people to end up in goal last time. Doubt it, neither Boeing or Airbus are paying
47 Post contains links and images AirRyan : The KC-30 will stil have more US parts content than Boeing's 787 and besides, look again at those job numbers - Boeing claimed 44,000 jobs and NG rev
48 Ken777 : Does Boeing have a chance? Considering that this is the first protest from the company they probably feel that they do have a chance. If the NG/Airbus
49 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : It must be magic........... It was only last month that NG/EADS was saying if the KC-30 was selected, it would employ 25,000 US workers. Now, that nu
50 Zeke : 69% with US engines.
51 KC135TopBoom : Thanks, I got the B-767 mixed up with the KC-767, which (Boeing said) had an 80+% US content.
52 Post contains images Halls120 : Post of the day!
53 Post contains images Astuteman : That comment's not worthy of this discussion. You know full well that "indirect workers" are those further down the supply chain from the OEM's, and
54 NorCal : There is no way they are adding 48,000 jobs. Right before the announcement of the winner they were claiming 25,000, how did they magically double the
55 Post contains images Scbriml : Simple - they changed the way they count them. No seriously, they did. It's all marketing BS spin, from both companies.    Most of these are not ne
56 NorCal : I think it was stupid for NG/EADS to do this because now some politician is going to question the way they are counting jobs and then try and build a
57 Post contains links Zeke : Scott Hamilton did a good piece on this today, he goes into the jobs data a fair bit, the NG numbers now are claiming 14,147 direct jobs, and 48,337 i
58 Post contains links RedFlyer : How will the NG/EADS price be kept under wraps since it's going to have to be funded by Congress eventually? Disclosing the overall price (post contr
59 Halls120 : It wasn't all that cheap, and it was funny. At least I thought so. I got a copy of Boeing's appeal today. Plan to read it on my flight to Canada tomo
60 Post contains links AirRyan : But if your buying Boeing's claims on 44,000 new jobs I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you... http://www.irconnect.com/
61 Zeke : That maybe the case, but at this stage the "option matrix" as far as I am aware is confidential, as the USAF has not decided on what options, and whe
62 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Is that before, or after California falls off into the Pacific? Now there is an unbiased press opinion. A press release from NG/EADS......... Comment
63 Alien : Not for the 767. Depending on model its more like 75-85 percent US content.
64 Post contains links and images Zeke : Please have a look at EXACTLY what was said, not what you think was said. At no stage did NG say that they thought the USAF was looking for a certain
65 Curt22 : I've explained the flaw in this point you previously made on another thread...since you continue to press this issue, I'm left with no alternative th
66 Jackonicko : Zeke, WHY does no other US service branch use Chinooks? The USN and USMC don't because the Chinook is ill-suited to shipborne operation. The USAF don'
67 RedFlyer : " target=_blank>http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Scotts...1.pdf Very insightful article. That was my point: the overall price for the airframes is or wi
68 Pygmalion : is that based on part count, labor hours, part costs or What national monetary system the profit is banked in?
69 Sxf24 : Boeing never claimed they would create 44,000 new jobs.
70 Zeke : From what I understand, they removed constraints from the model which were not constraints under the RFP. The RFP does not have a specified limit on
71 Sxf24 : Its part of the life cycle cost, which the USAF conveniently ignored.
72 Zeke : I don't think they ignored it, maybe they think they have a better grasp on the running of their bases than what Boeing does, i.e. does Boeing know w
73 Curt22 : Jack, Many have spoken with some authority as to the "requirements" for KC-X (I have no such insight)...That said, The CSAR-X aircraft also had a lis
74 Jackonicko : It's certainly worth cautioning people about second-guessing those who made the decision. Presumably you feel just as strongly that no-one should ques
75 NorCal : The ironic thing about that is that there are a lot of tanker pilots who actually fly tanker missions who express dismay over the selection of the KC
76 Jackonicko : There may be some tanker pilots who actually fly tanker missions who have expressed dismay over the selection of the KC-30, but not a lot. That certai
77 Azhobo : I assume the 22 page Boeing complaint filed today was posted either here or on the other thread. It is quite a good read and makes me think the decisi
78 Curt22 : I know little of the KC-X effort so will not pass judgement on the choice made. However, I will only repeat my previous speculation that the BA prote
79 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07367r.pdf the GAO cannot direct any US Government agency to do anything. They (the GAO) can appeal to
80 Zeke : NG/EADS has never said they will be using the A330-200F as the base for the KC-30A, I have provided you with evidence of this before on a number of t
81 KC135TopBoom : Most of this is correct, and has nothing to do with what the politicians will do, or use as justification to EADS as to why they defund the KC-45. Bu
82 Post contains images LifelinerOne : I expect the AF to have calculated all those scenarios and therefore thinks that the KC-45A will be sufficient for most operations, don't you think.
83 Post contains links Zeke : If the customer was of the view it did, it would be in the RFP. This is not a metric under the RFP. The USAF does not plan to put the KC-X at that ba
84 Jackonicko : Curt 22, “It's not surprising that those who know only the marketing manusha offered by the vendors would draw conclusions based on less than impart
85 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I don't know why the USAF doesn't "plan" to base the KC-X at DG, there have been tanker operations there since, at least 1980. The DG runway is 12,00
86 Zeke : Maybe becuase the lease from the UK comes up in 2016, and the KC-135/KC-10s will do just fine. BTW an 30 degC outside air temperature in the tropics
87 KC135TopBoom : Then if the US is planning to renew the lease, they need to start talking to the Brits about it, soon. The temperture statement is true, but it still
88 Gigneil : All of them can keep working. Boeing's commercial business is more than booming. NS
89 Post contains images Bmacleod : Just looking at the two aircraft, the A330 is wider and considerably larger than the 767 - meaning that it will hold substantially more fuel for refue
90 KC135TopBoom : The KC-45 is 50% bigger than the K767AT, but only carries 20% more fuel. The KC-45 burns 9% more fuel than the KC-767AT, and only carries 7-13 more p
91 Post contains links RedFlyer : Looks like on its face, the Boeing appeal has some legs as the GAO refused NG/EADS' motion to throw out material portions of Boeing's claims. http://w
92 Post contains links Scbriml : Maybe the GAO denied the motions because Boeing withdrew portions of their protest themselves? http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN023883
93 Post contains links Pygmalion : no thats what NG/EADS said. plenty of reports after that that was not the case. this is the letter from the GAO dening NG/EADS motion to dismiss. http
94 Post contains links Revelation : Boeing denies narrowing the scope of their appeal: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/135639.asp Northrop enlists 22 (!) retired ge
95 Post contains links Himself : FWIW, Boeing released a statement that the USAF evaluation found the 767 wasn't as bad as other stories have led us to believe. "Despite the changes m
96 Post contains links AirRyan : The latest from AvWeek... Payton: KC-X Extra Credit Was No Secret http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Was%20No%20Secret&channel=defense
97 NorCal : check the link
98 Post contains links Scbriml : http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Was%20No%20Secret&channel=defense
99 Post contains links Alien : Boeing says that the AIr Force found fewer weaknesses with the KC-767 than with the KC-30. If true that's even more trouble for the EADs bid. Perhaps
100 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : That is true, the USAF found the KC-767AT had strenghts in 98 areas, and weaknesses in 1 area. The USAF also found the KC-30A had strenghts in 30 are
101 Post contains links Scbriml : Of course, it depends what those relative strengths and weaknesses are. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 It
102 Post contains links Pygmalion : It does depend on what the weaknesses are, without a doubt. But recent articles from people in the know say that the flaws in the KC-30 were much more
103 TristarAtLCA : Very interesting, especially as he gave no name, position, experience or qualification of the 'person' who told him this was the case. For all we kno
104 AirRyan : The way Boeing keeps trying to sue for a job makes me not ever want to contribute to their company ever again if I were the USAF.
105 Post contains images EPA001 :   [Edited 2008-04-04 18:48:06]
106 Ken777 : The first protest in 30 years? How many times has Boeing lost to another contractor and NOT protested? For Boeing to break a 30 year tradition they m
107 Alien : Oh come on now a former high ranking defense department official know more than our very own experts? That speaks volumes. 1. Data used to evaluate a
108 Zeke : Ken, I agree with you 100%, Boeing has every right to protest, it should consider every avenue available to them as part of the due process of contra
109 Alien : If that where the case then why would the GAO throw out the motion to dismiss the protest by the Air Force and EADS? Face it both companies are fight
110 Zeke : EADS did not protest. The person in the GAO who makes the decision is is normally an individual with legal training that assesses the submissions on
111 TristarAtLCA : Says who? The 'person' on Capitol Hill. Show me this 'persons' credentials in the field of computer modelling in relation to Air Force requirements t
112 Alien : It means that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the evaluation may not have been conducted correctly, hence EADS and the USAF had not pro
113 Zeke : No it does not, just means their submission was unsuccessful. You cannot draw any conclusion on the Boeing submission from that, 1+1 does not equal 3
114 Halls120 : So - NGs hiring of a bunch of retired AF generals to shill for NG and write pompous letters to the Secretary of Defense is OK with you? If NG had los
115 Zeke : I noticed a few statements in the Boeing submission which were news to me ... They claim the A400M delays have caused two customers to walk away from
116 TristarAtLCA : I could not care less about it's politic. And I have no knowledge of this politician. But please state where in the article he states anything which
117 XT6Wagon : But its far more punishing if you court martial them if they bias a contract for thier own profit. A dishonorable discharge when you are that high up
118 JoeinTX : The Boeing backers have a great deal invested in the G.A.O review. If, I wonder and suppose, they return with a thumbs-up for the competition and the
119 Zeke : Do you think enough not to announce a delay on the 787 tomorrow if they know they have one ? i.e. do you think they might bury an announcement of a d
120 Sprout5199 : And if the GAO come back and says the selection process was flawed what will the EADS backers do? And just how does the 787 affect the tanker bid? An
121 EPA001 : If the GAO rules in favor of the Boeing protest, they are ruling against the prime contractor of the deal. Which is not EADS but is NG (!) with its s
122 Zeke : Considering Boeing in their GAO submission have included the KC-30B, A400M, Tiger, NH90, E-2D SDD, A340-500/600, A350, and A380, as fair game for NG
123 Post contains links Revelation : In this FlightGlobal article one can find a claim by Boeing's VP of tanker programs that the USAF feels the NG/EADS boom has safety issues:: The artic
124 Alien : No they will not and should not. It's not just about the "best tanker". That's nonsense, we don't always buy the best, we never have. If that where t
125 JoeinTX : If the GAO finds some sort of serious problem with the USAF's selection, then sure, it needs to be revisited. But I don't believe that means that suc
126 M27 : Setting a precedent? yeah right!
127 EPA001 : To JoeinTX: I think you mixed up some quotes here. The quote which has my name on top of it is coming from Sprout5199. The quote which has Zeke's name
128 Astuteman : That's true. Otherwise the KC45 would have been specified with Trent 700's Rgds
129 Revelation : To turn your logic back on you, then why have an appeals process? Because the DoD and the USAF are free of political influence, have never been bribe
130 Sprout5199 : None of it would be going on, as it would be an American designed aircraft, build totally by an American company, big difference. The use of NG by EA
131 AirRyan : Only to counter the onslaught of those retired Generals and politicans on Boeing's payroll - and it's not like the NG bid doesn't have a lot of merit
132 Halls120 : What full page ad have the "Boeing Generals" authored and delivered to Secretary Gates?
133 JoeinTX : I'm not replying to indiviudals but rather individual statements. I didn't assign that response to anyone in particular. I've got 0 problem with a re
134 Alien : Of course Rolls makes a fine jet engine. They are just slightly inferior to Pratt and Whitney and GE!!!!
135 Sprout5199 : You got your quotes all messed up--but that is a common thing using the quote feature So why did they need NG If they can make a superior tanker? To
136 Revelation : Who knows, but where's the harm in a 3rd party checking over the DoD/USAF's work? The outcome of all this will be (a) the GAO finds some solid eviden
137 JoeinTX : Well, I think that's obvious to all involved. Workshare unchanged, if this had been an "Airbus" entry then it wouldn't have received any real conside
138 Revelation : The GAO process has yet to run its course, so we don't know what Boeing will do afterwords, but I do agree that Boeing is running a parallel "slash a
139 Alien : Don't make me laugh. There have and continue to be plenty of instances where the Air Force failed to conduct a proper evaluation. In fact the GAO ove
140 JoeinTX : That they do, they do..... They did indeed do so after the first reading of the req's appeared to overly favor the 767.........after which they appea
141 Astuteman : For what its worth, you got the Quotes mixed up again, Joe. That quote was made by EPA001 in reply 127. Have a care to click the "quote selected text
142 Alien : You mean when they took out the part that said they would adjust the cost of the tanker based on any subsidies received? Don't you think it's rather
143 Norlander : Sometimes it's hard to follow your line of reasoning. If you're only horse in this race is to be as pro-US as possible you should jump with joy over
144 Sprout5199 : And I install police radios(built by another company) into cars and test them, so I guess that means I can build cars right?Putting parts together is
145 McG1967 : The counter argument in the WTO dispute is that Boeing has received subsidy's through it's military division and tax breaks. All development loans to
146 Alien : I don't want to take another thread off topic so I will not comment here on specifics in regard to the two arguments. I do however think you are miss
147 TristarAtLCA : Dan, this is a very slippery slope to be on. Subsidy is a double edged sword. There is argument and counter-argument from both sides of the pond, but
148 TristarAtLCA : Whilst conveniently forgetting/ignoring the financial assistance Boeing receive. We have had this discussion before Alien. Best left for another thre
149 Alien : No I did not. I acknowledged that there is an argument on the other side. The point it the US government, the customer, the entity paying the bill, w
150 Sprout5199 : True, however I do take offense at people who say military contracts and tax breaks are "subsidies". EADS has used, are going to use both(now from th
151 RomeoKC10FE : Agreed, they didn't whine when they lost the JSF contract.
152 TristarAtLCA : Apologies, I was referring to the US govt. position not yours. My post did not make that clear. I don't think offence needs to be taken. Washington S
153 Sprout5199 : True, but how much is EADS/NG getting from Alabama? Any company that wants to build/relocate a factory in those states will get the same help. I know
154 McG1967 : Let's assume that the GAO overturn the contract award for a minute: there is then the scenario that there could be a long winded and drawn out process
155 Zeke : As far as I am aware, the KC-767AT aircraft and boom design is not complete, it would not be possible in my view for Boeing to achieve that. NG has a
156 Sprout5199 : To that end, how much did UK, Germany, France, and Spain put up to upgrade,build or enlarge the infrastructure for the A380? Is that not a subsidy? T
157 Alien : That has nothing at all to do with the 767 for which the tanker is based upon. We are talking about the KC-767 and the KC-30, not the 787. It did not
158 Zeke : I think the Rand report covered that, a clean sheet design was considered not affordable. To come up with a clean sheet design would take at least 5
159 Alien : It is thought that the current tankers can go to 2040. That is a fact that even the Rand report acknowledges. Obviously going that long may not be wi
160 Zeke : Only SOME can, not all, some are being retired now. You mean the prior experience that could not develop a KC-767 tanker on time ? or the current exp
161 TristarAtLCA : Yes, Yes and Yes. And I oppose it all. The main reason being that it is the manufacturers themselves who create this scenario. Boeing shopping around
162 Alien : Wrong. All can. The Air Force has chosen to to upgrade the E's. They would have needed to first be brought up to KC-135R standard. The Air Force smel
163 Alien : You keep missing the point. It's because whether you agree with it or not, the US Government does not consider Boeing to be receiving illegal subsidi
164 TristarAtLCA : Not at all like a coupon Dan. The coupon is available to all, whether it is used or not, and when in Orlando last October, I did not note government
165 Sprout5199 : You mean assembling them right? Add in the A380, and the A400 delays right? Lets be fair about the delays by manufactures ok. Nothing is easy. So may
166 Post contains links Alien : Hmmm if it's crowded with KC-135s I wonder what it's going to be like with KC-30s which are twice as big. Hmmm, so much for the retiring them because
167 TristarAtLCA : No I am not missing the point. You are yet again simplifying the issue for your own benefit. The EU believes Boeing is receiving unfair aid/assistanc
168 Zeke : Nope, KC-135s are being retired now for various airframe issues. Engine upgrades alone would no fix that. Never said or suggested that, I just do not
169 Post contains links Alien : What part of this very simple situation don't you understand? It is immaterial if the US believes that US companies are doing no wrong. The US is the
170 Zeke : I don't disagree some can, but even this year the number of KC-135s available is less than what it was 5 years ago mainly due to corrosion, they star
171 Ken777 : It's not a subsidy - it's an incentive, like the incentives that communities come up with to bring in jobs for any industry. In TUL we actually vote
172 TristarAtLCA : I fail to see what is immaterial in this if the issue of subsidy is, in your opinion, the death nail for the KC-45 in Congress, but the saviour of th
173 Post contains links Alien : They chose not to address the corrosion on the KC-135Rs (which is a fraction of those retired) because the cold war is over and there is no longer a
174 JoeinTX : Fine. The USAF uses the same requirements and key points it did in this competition and they issue a brand new RFP for purpose built ATA tankers. I t
175 TristarAtLCA : Why not just state your position as 'if its not made here, I don't want it' rather than all this subsidy BS. If the A330 was not subsidised you would
176 Revelation : Actually, not. Both A and B have similar sized defense businesses (EADS actually does more business than does Boeing IDS). Both A and B take local in
177 TristarAtLCA : Maybe we use the words differently. When I hear incentive, it conjurs up images of the top salesman getting a weekend in Paris, a 2 for 1 DVD offer,
178 Post contains links TristarAtLCA : That is simply not correct. Defensenews.com has Boeing at number 2 with revenues of just under $31bn while EADS are in the number seven spot wth reve
179 Post contains links and images Zeke : From the USAF KC-135 fact sheet, where else ? "Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of more than 481 Stratotankers" "In 1954 the Air Force purch
180 Post contains links M27 : Leeham has some interesting information on tanker pricing in a story that it has provided a link for.Available at its website. http://leehamnews.wordp
181 AirRyan : Well throw in 358+spares many more CF6's for the USAF KC-45's, that has to tilt the scales in GE's favor quite a bit I would imagine?!
182 Post contains links Alien : The point is that your statement is misleading. Yes they bought a total of 732 over 30 years and over the past several years the number of KC-135s in
183 Zeke : They are, and even worse, corroding out. With an active fleet of 481 now. Negative, the equivalent of 600 KC-135R, not 600 KC-135s. And the RAND repo
184 JoeinTX : You've used this more than once and seem to take it for canon. I can believe that under current conditions, current known airframe limitations, curre
185 Alien : Yes Zeke there is some corrosion on the KC-135Es, but the Air Force had/has a choice, they can re-engine the Es and replace the struts to bring them
186 Zeke : You are correct, the USAF did not see it as being economically or strategically viable to upgrade the KC-135 fleet, however that is not something I h
187 BHMBAGLOCK : Great post but this one particular fact is not quite correct. The $600 million investment in AL is for the NG and EADS plants combined.
188 Zeke : Thanks, will check that out, thought Tom Enders had said it.
189 Post contains links Alien : But Rand and every other study claimed that it was viable. Lets be honest Zeke, the Air Force goes for the shiny new toy over maintaining the old stu
190 Post contains links Zeke : They dont, just about every aircraft type in the USAF these days (including the KC-135) has seen upgrade packages performed over purchasing new airfr
191 M27 : Actually, I believe the article said they lowered costs by 1.4 billion dollars! Loren Thompson, who you were so quick to quote in the "pre" announcem
192 Post contains links Zeke : USAF added $776 million to the NG bid for the aircraft (and we know what that is for, Boeing has been trying to make mileage out of the "less surviva
193 Post contains links M27 : Added 776 million, and took away 1,400 million equals taking away 624 million? Only your opinion! http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org Loren Thompson is
194 Zeke : The 776 number is what the USAF added to the NG bid, the other number is an estimate of life cycle costs, crew fuel etc, which the USAF has come up w
195 M27 : Like what difference does that make? They could add and take away all they wanted, as they apparently did to both companys. That does not change the
196 Post contains links Zeke : Because they did not take any money away from the NG proposal, it was in the USAF cost model. NG and Boeing have little say over those life cycle cos
197 Astuteman : One interesting point regarding the 6% fuel burn difference is that there is currently strong competition between the engine makers in the commercial
198 EPA001 : Which means the case for using an A330 based tanker is growing stronger and stronger. The 6% difference could becoming less and less, maybe the diffe
199 Alien : I don't know where you are getting your numbers from the delta between a A330-200 and a B767-200ER, the two airframes most closely related to the res
200 Post contains images Astuteman : And the Boeing salesmen push a different number. So what? Knowing what 6% is based upon, I'll trust that. Misses the point, really. The point of the
201 Alien : I would sooner see PW strengthened. PW needs help Airbus did a fine job with the A330 but apply some common sense here. An aircraft whose airframe is
202 Astuteman : That's the same sort of nonsensical argument we heard on here regarding the A380 vs the 748i - focussing excluively on weight whilst completely ignor
203 Baroque : I did not read all 200 odd posts, but of course the subsidy non-issue was bound to come up. Just about 7 or 8 years too late lads as that appears to
204 Post contains links Zeke : Boeing is not offering the 767-200ER as a tanker, it is based upon the 767-200LRF, just about the only similarity between the KC-767AT and the 767-20
205 Trex8 : the USAF personnel who testified at the House hearings specifically pointed out legislation the DoD interprets as saying they are legally forbidden t
206 Curt22 : Since the CSAR folks had to issue amendment 6 last week with language that incorporates changes in law on the use of foreign specialty metals how nig
207 Trex8 : I think thats a separate issue. Foreign metals used in production from whatever national origin the supplier company is from is one thing. The OEM be
208 Post contains links Ken777 : A nice hit on the USAF level of integrity on procurement today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...8041702248.html?hpid=moreheadlines Personally I
209 Post contains links Slz396 : Boeing is really going bananas over loosing out against NG so it seems! A Boeing sponsored add in the Washington Post: http://www.boeing.com/ids/globa
210 Curt22 : I understand this is a separate issue from nation of the OEM, but if DoD must now apply this measure to CSAR-X, than can applying this measure to KC-
211 Curt22 : At least the Boeing ad spoke to issues (from their perspective)...unlike the meaningless "Letter to Sec Gates" that found it's way into papers as pai
212 EPA001 : Yes it does. And if they were really that sure of themselves, why didn't they win the competition against the NG-EADS-GE bid? Why keep on repeating t
213 Gsosbee : Tick ... tick ... tick ... The KC-135's are getting older, not newer. Who is going to tak
214 Scbriml : They can't do that. The GAO has to announce its ruling within 100 days of the protest being lodged.
215 Post contains links Virgin747LGW : From http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/BOEG_IDS_TNK_1355N_B.pdf "Aircraft size is also a factor; the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the ta
216 Alien : What a load of manure. We don't really don't know which one is superior since neither has flown and none of us (anyone who is talking anyway) have ac
217 Astuteman : Indeed. Hence my comment. Spend most of my time there. We get the same ridiculous comments there too........ Rgds
218 EPA001 : Without writing all the + 1000 posts in several threads on this issue again (as I already stated in my earlier post) there is one simple fact: The EA
219 Post contains links Scbriml : So he can't express an opinion or show an interest unless he's a Boeing shareholder? Are you an EADS shareholder, or just showing an interest? http:/
220 Checksixx : Was the Buy America Act even part of the bid? Many times it isn't.
221 Slz396 : ROTFL Didn't you know yet? Some people think they have the god-given right to give their personal opinion on anything which they deem unjust, stake h
222 Zeke : I think so, there is a long list of "contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:" which included "252.225-7001 B
223 Ken777 : The questions should be related to where there was a difference and how much? Plus what were the advantages of the Boeing offer? Then we get into oth
224 Trex8 : Payton was using the BAA as cover when the politicians were panning her and her AF minions on Capitol Hill during the hearings for selecting a "forei
225 Post contains links Halls120 : Funny thing about that ad, and all its pious outrage about how "our" Air Force would never do anything wrong is that the Air Force is under pressure
226 Alien : So tell me why are all of these airlines are looking for ways to shed weight again?
227 Post contains images Astuteman : Because its worth doing, especially to increase payload capability. The issue is that fuel burn is a direct function of DRAG, not WEIGHT. Weight IS a
228 Post contains links Alien : No they are not doing it to increase payload, they are doing it to spend less on fuel. The less you lift the less you burn. It really is that simple.
229 Zeke : The USAF do this as well, not every tanker sortie takes off at MTOW. You must have missed my previous post, I gave you a clear example of a larger he
230 Astuteman : If you don't think that fuel burn is a function of drag, then there is no rational conversation that can be had. If you want to pick on the area drag
231 EPA001 : Great posts, as always. Thanks for the Info. There is always something to learn on A-net every day! Kind regards!
232 Post contains links RedFlyer : There's a brief but interesting article in the Wichita Eagle this morning (Sunday, April 20). It talks about the GAO attorney overseeing the Boeing ap
233 Post contains links Scbriml : Air Force Expects Boeing to lose appeal. http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
234 Halls120 : And in other breaking news, the sun rose in the east this morning. Did you really expect to hear USAF employees to say anything else?
235 Scbriml : Maybe not, but it's certainly newsworthy that they spent "a marathon session" reviewing Boeing's appeal and concluded that the GAO is unlikely to uph
236 Curt22 : We don't know what the USAF "Thinks"...the story only tells us what Loren Thompson "thinks" the USAF has concluded...and the point is moot, all that
237 Halls120 : USAF employees could spend a month analyzing Boeing's protest, and the end result would be the same. They are going to ratify what their organization
238 XT6Wagon : or, is it what he is paid to say he thinks? I find it funny he made rather bold statements about the bid slamming Boeing for everything short of kidn
239 Post contains links BHMBAGLOCK : Nancy Pelosi was in BHM last night and refused to answer questions about the KC-45. Kind of awkward position for her trying to drum up money/votes her
240 RedFlyer : While I think the USAF may be correct in believing that Boeing will lose the overall appeal, I doubt ALL 200 issues will be ruled in favor of the USA
241 EPA001 : In defense of the USAF I must add that the spewing of propaganda is all on Boeings part to begin with. They are working all media channels and politi
242 Post contains links Baroque : Alien, you do seem to have missed a major thread with some excellent contributions, basically about physics, I suppose. It was in tech/ops and can be
243 KC135TopBoom : But a lot of a.netters seem to think the 2002 KC-767 lease was corrupted by Boeing, that is not the case here, or then. It was a USAF Official who we
244 EPA001 : Well the deal was corrupt. Otherwise people are not convicted to do time in jail and people do not lose their job if their behaviour was considered a
245 Gsosbee : So the Air Force person gave the lease contract to Boeing and the next Monday showed up at Boeing and said, "Here I am!". I don't think it went quite
246 EPA001 : If you read my reply carefully you will see that I totally agree with you. What you are saying is what I tried to say. I never said the USAF person s
247 Post contains links TropicBird : The record will show in the KC-X Tanker scandal that: Darlen Druyun - A Boeing employee and former USAF acquisition official went to jail. After negot
248 XT6Wagon : not *quite* true since Congress can authorise money that could only be spent at Boeing for a KC767 with proper language in the bill providing said mo
249 KC135TopBoom : There are similarities between the KC-30 and KC-45, as well as the A-330TT and A-330MRTT, just as the KC-767A, KC-767J, and KC-767AT have similaritie
250 Post contains links Zeke : What is an A330TT ? Now such beast made by EADS/Airbus. The KC-30 and KC-45 is the same aircraft, the KC-30 is the EADS designation, KC-45 the NG des
251 Post contains links Alien : Really? http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/ http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/solutions/experience.html Do try to get your facts straight Zeke.
252 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/...b.htm 507,063lbs MTOW for the KC-30B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-30B
253 Tugger : " target=_blank>http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/...b.htm People are confusing "Tonnes" i.e. "Metric Tons" with USA's common use "Tons". 233 Metri
254 KC135TopBoom : correct. 1 ton = 2,000lbs (also sometimes called a short ton) 1 tonne = 2,208lbs 1 long ton = 2,240lbs
255 Post contains links Zeke : What exactly did I get wrong, your post is far to cryptic for anyone to understand? FYI A330 MRTT - EADS designation http://www.eads.com/1024/en/busi
256 Gemuser : Brave statement about DRAG to a naval architect who designs and builds submarines for a living Gemuser
257 Osiris30 : Indeed. Weight has a impact on drag (but only when coupled with structural shaping), but drag has the direct impact on fuel burn. Weight is not a dir
258 Baroque : Well what do you expect when a whole class of subs gets named after the guy?
259 Astuteman : An acknowledgement is required to all of those knowledgeable A-netters who contributed to my (our collective?) better understanding of drag in the va
260 Rheinwaldner : For the climb and descend following needs to be considered: Effort minus benefit is almost zero. Physics teaches if you load an object with potential
261 Rwessel : That's not why we use ballast. First, if it was only the extra energy you'd catpure from the tug, it wouldn't amount to very much - you stay up by fi
262 Rheinwaldner : I still try to figure out whether we are talking about the same just from different perspective. My argument is: If two wheeled vehicles drive down a
263 Klaus : No, it won't be. In fact, without air and ground friction they would reach the exact same speed at the same point. The higher potential energy is req
264 Ken777 : One issue that hasn't been discussed, but I hope will be covered in the GOA review, is the impact that the falling Dollar has on the price. The Euro h
265 Pygmalion : The USAF contracts are in Dollars... if the Euro does up in relation to the dollar.. EADS makes less profit.
266 Ken777 : I understand that. However, with all the joys Airbus has been having with the rising Euro on the commercial side I can't believe that they would not
267 Scbriml : The USAF contract is with NG not EADS, so there should be no need to account for Euro exchange rate. If the contract had been directly with EADS, the
268 Astuteman : I would have thought hedging would be the obvious solution........ Rgds
269 Klaus : EADS is most probably ready to eat up even a loss to a certain degree just to get a foot in the door with the USAF. If the KC-45 project should turn o
270 KC135TopBoom : No, it is not possible with the Bush, or any other Administration. The exchange rate of currency is set by market forces, not governments.
271 Osiris30 : Generally correct, but.. wars and such things can have a direct impact on the value of a country's currency (coups are also a good one ). Governments
272 Post contains links Atmx2000 : It's back to around $1.55. The Euro is unlikely much above $1.60. Anyway here are some interest comments from Loren Thompson http://lexingtoninstitut
273 Post contains links TropicBird : Mr. Thompson also has some explaining to do with his "access" to the USAF on sensitive tanker information. Interesting posting on the subject linked
274 RedFlyer : It is interesting how he's suddenly moving to the Boeing playbook. I wonder if, like the article states, his sources have suddenly disappeared becaus
275 Atmx2000 : The reason why I say it is unlikely is that the current exchange rate is a correction of the long standing undervaluation of European economic output
276 Atmx2000 : I think it was obvious the spinmeisters in USAF were working overtime.
277 Alien : Loren Thompson points out some interesting facts that are going to be difficult to spin. The KC-45 is 27 percent heavier then the KC-767 and burns 20
278 RedFlyer : Of course it makes sense. But I think that valuation factor works only in the long term, not short term, which is where the day-to-day fluctuations h
279 Alien : He claims that his earlier statements where based on what he was told by the Air Force. He also says that he has since asked for proof or corroborati
280 Atmx2000 : Er, actually it didn't make any sense. Well over one half of that overvaluation was due to a dollar bubble that started in 1997 in the aftermath of t
281 BHMBAGLOCK : You make some good points, but blaming NG/EADS for a delay in construction 100% attributable to the Boeing protest is ridiculous.
282 Alien : My bad, that is not what I meant. Delays have nothing to do with them not even having the assembly line up and running. The fact remains that Boeing
283 Trex8 : don't the 767s have to be sent from WA to KS to be rebuilt as tankers??
284 XT6Wagon : The plan is to build the basic plane to specifications required, then fly to KS to get mission hardware installed. So not a full conversion from a ci
285 Gsosbee : Boeing would be better served to move those workers to the 787 line (and open a second one.) Remember, the 767 line is winding down. But then maybe B
286 WarRI1 : I do not see how that can happen, how would the Air Force boycote Boeing? The appeals process is there for a reason and I do not blame Boeing for usi
287 Gsosbee : I indicated that I didn't blame Boeing either. Just the public bashing that has been going on ever since. It has not made them very popular, and has
288 WarRI1 : I think much of the bashing of Boeing has been from across the pond, I have not seen much from this side. I understand your point, but I do not like
289 Flighty : This is what I think as well. Boeing is in this game to sell aircraft at a profit. Airbus is in it for totally different reasons. They just want to b
290 WarRI1 : [quote=Flighty,reply=289]Airbus is in it for totally different reasons. They just want to become a competitor in America's extremely large military pr
291 Decromin : Aye - welcome to Capitalism. I hope you enjoy your stay. More seriously, whilst the companies exist to make profits, I'd like to think that the engin
292 Baroque : Now every time I get on a Qantas 767, I will have to check to see where the engine is.
293 Klaus : Of course – but sometimes it pays to invest in the short run to gain profits in the long run.
294 Alien : Perhaps EADS should invest more in China rather then the US. Bigger market, less regulation, no home grown competition. Why stop at an A320 assembly
295 WarRI1 : I would certainly agree with that.
296 Trex8 : obviously not a student of the CCPs policies
297 Alien : It was tongue in cheek.
298 Scbriml : Who says they will?
299 WarRI1 : I hope you are not advocating such a thing, sending jobs hither and yon. what are we now citizens of the global village where we just send peoples jo
300 Flipdewaf : By normal people do you mean americans? My standard of living has gone up hugely over the last few years, am I not normal? Fred
301 WarRI1 : A poor choice of words on my part, let us say lower to middle income folks in the US. I guess if things are going so well economically in Europe, a l
302 Post contains links Ken777 : It will be interesting to see if the game has now changed: "Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Defense Secretary Robert Gates
303 RedFlyer : I don't think the tanker decision played into the whacking of these top two USAF officials. However, I do think the loss of these two officials means
304 Post contains links RedFlyer : And to add to my above comment, this interesting piece of information: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/...;_ylt=AmGgLjWPE8HPP4qzzN0ReJCs0NUE Now,
305 Scbriml : I'm not advocating anything. In Airbus's specific case, the A320 FAL in China is producing planes over and above those assembled in France and German
306 Post contains links TropicBird : It appears this has already been asked of the GAO to consider. "Top Air Force Officals Resign" http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/
307 NorCal : Not true, if those airplanes were built in Europe, Airbus would have needed to hire more workers to build those extra planes. Instead they hired Chin
308 Scbriml : Well, you can't lose what you haven't got or can't have - the European production lines (for both A320 series and A330/340) will be running at maximu
309 Halls120 : Now where are all those retired AF Generals on NG's payroll who were complaining about Boeing's protest being a slur on the good name of "their" Air
310 WarRI1 : Trust me, nobody fought that battle more than I, this cheap junk from overseas, we set the wheels in motion and we have certainly paid with our stand
311 TristarAtLCA : The problem with the protectionist view for the US is that you have roughly 25% of the worlds wealth but only 2-3% of the customers. Global utopia it
312 Alien : I think you may have that backward. We have about 25% of the worlds market in just about everything. The US is a huge market and while the US is eith
313 Flipdewaf : hmmmm, precious boeing tanker we shall have, NG steals it they did. thanks, il be here all week Fred
314 TristarAtLCA : Unless you are 25% of the global population and only have 2-3% of its welath than I think I have it the right way round. I was talking about proporti
315 Alien : No, wealth equals buying power. Either way it's a red herring. US is largest (by dollar amount) consumer market and defense market. Don't be so sure
316 TristarAtLCA : Nothing you posted disputes what I wrote. You have posted three known facts. To be fair I have no idea what NAFTA does or doesn't do for your economy
317 DeltaL1011man : Well thats just great to know......That will make me sleep better at night knowing some one could put the wrong bomb on the B52s.
318 Post contains links Alien : As more "free trade" agreements and with the creation of the WTO those deficits have skyrocketed. No, the sentiment actually is that this is just ano
319 TristarAtLCA : You have never denied that much of the tanker rhetoric has revolved around the 'not made here' stance. You are doing this in this post right now. The
320 Venus6971 : I remeber back in the 80's the soul searching parliment went through when they relized they could no longer sink pounds in the Nimrod AWACS they coul
321 Gsosbee : A similar number went/will go onto Boeing's payroll. Just the way the system works. One final time. The only issue that Boeing has is if it can be pr
322 TropicBird : Boeing was clear that they were discouraged from offering the large 777. Boeing also seems to have used that same information in refusing to provide
323 Post contains links Scbriml : The key word there is "was". Their view seems to have changed significantly from "The AF told us not to bid the KC-777" to "The AF SEEMED to favour a
324 EPA001 : When all the discussions about the USAF awarding the initial contract to NG-EADS this topic was made one of the biggest arguments the Boeing supporte
325 XT6Wagon : Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is merly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than
326 EPA001 : And I do not know how many times it has been pointed out here that the severely modified B767-AT is not even completely designed yet. Parts of it are
327 Gsosbee : Come on XT6Wagon, the 767 based tanker that Boeing proposed is not even off the drawing board, much less flying. I would have preferred a Boeing prod
328 Post contains links and images WINGS : What on earth are you talking about? Airbus has actually been testing and demonstrating the maturity of the A330 MRTT (RAAF) and the BOOM system (A31
329 Post contains links PanAm_DC10 : With over 300 replies please continue at Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II thank you
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...
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Why A Bunch Of KC-135s At Pease In NH? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 10:33:40 by ChrisNH
Boeing VP Of Tanker Programs Csan Interview posted Wed May 30 2007 19:39:48 by 102IAHexpress
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Bird Of Prey posted Fri Oct 18 2002 22:36:21 by Aerobalance
Role Of Military Planes Declines In Boeing's Defen posted Mon Apr 7 2008 05:59:11 by Stitch
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X posted Sat Jul 14 2007 00:17:17 by Keesje
Boeing Makes Unsolicited Offer Of C-17s posted Mon Apr 23 2007 02:30:02 by Laxintl
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Why A Bunch Of KC-135s At Pease In NH? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 10:33:40 by ChrisNH
Boeing VP Of Tanker Programs Csan Interview posted Wed May 30 2007 19:39:48 by 102IAHexpress
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Bird Of Prey posted Fri Oct 18 2002 22:36:21 by Aerobalance
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107
Role Of Military Planes Declines In Boeing's Defen posted Mon Apr 7 2008 05:59:11 by Stitch