Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II  
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Posted (6 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 6771 times:

We're closing in on the expected deadline for the GAO ruling and the other thread is getting a little long. So here's a little something hot off the press to chew over:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Air Force has conceded it chose the more expensive option in awarding a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. instead of Boeing Co., the companies said Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news....ap/index.htm?section=money_latest

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of detail regarding what specifically led to the miscalculation. Hopefully, we'll know some details soon.


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

That is not going to matter. Dicks and Murtha are trying to bring the entire process to a halt:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nnel=defense&id=news/HALT06128.xml

Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed and put forward an airplane that does not exist. They lost, now their whining and misinformation is close to keeping new airplanes from the airmen who fly them.

I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky (assuming they get off the ground). This has all of the making for a real national shame.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

And the dust settles...

Quote:

UPDATE: Well, looks like there's a math error in the Reuters story and Northrop release! If you subtract $108.01 billion from $108.44 billion, you get a difference of $430 million, NOT $34 million per airplane. Boeing says it was briefed by the Air Force earlier that $108.44b should actually be $108.044 billion, which would give you the correct $34 million difference. Maybe we all need new calculators.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25124767


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 6744 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777,

The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big. And Yes, I know the KC-45 is "bigger" than the 767 but it is still a mid-size - albeit a large mid-size - plane, not a "large aircraft" as defined by the bid criteria.

The whole 777 option is a red herring.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 6729 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed

That's a little dramatic, don't you think? Are you implying that Northrup-Grumman was not greedy and not driven by profit motives and their only reason for teaming with an off-shore entity was purely altruistic in nature?

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky

In 2040 when the KC-135Rs will start to hit their maximum (as of current configuration) flight/cycle hours, Rep. Dicks will be 100 years old and Rep. Murtha will be 108 years old. Doubtful either will live to see those ages nor to experience the ramifications of their conduct, however ignoble they may be.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big.

Just curious, but what bid criteria did it not meet? (Sorry, I've been traveling extensively the last few months and haven't kept up on all the facts and back-and-forth like I used to so I'd be genuinely curious to know.)



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 6718 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed and put forward an airplane that does not exist.

Do you also prefer NG/EADS also put the crews ahead of greed? BTW, none of them existyet, neither the KC-777, KC-767AT, or KC-45A.,

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky (assuming they get off the ground). This has all of the making for a real national shame.

How about a little shame in making a stupid statement like that? Congress, the USAF, any airline, or anyone else that funds/flys airplanes will not put any airplane in the air if there is a safety issue.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 6701 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
How about a little shame in making a stupid statement like that? Congress, the USAF, any airline, or anyone else that funds/flys airplanes will not put any airplane in the air if there is a safety issue.

Flight safety is the greatest flight issue; however, it is not the issue between the airplanes. Congress will do what ever it takes to either get votes or not lose votes.

If what all of you infer is that the 777 was not an option, then thank you as all of this up to the Congressional action is a non-issue. The only thing that will stop the award to NG is if the GAO finds documented proof that the Air Force told Boeing not to bid their 777. Absent that I would seriously doubt there will be enough to overturn the award.

However, what about Boeing's boasts that if the Air Force had wanted a larger airplane all they had to do is tell Boeing? Obviously that would have been the 777, but we know now, like the 767-AT it does not exist and cannot meet the maximum weight take off requirement.

KC135TopBoom you will fly what you are ordered to fly or get out. Complaining because you do not get the equipment you want is a little to E-2'ish.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 6669 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 6):
However, what about Boeing's boasts that if the Air Force had wanted a larger airplane all they had to do is tell Boeing? Obviously that would have been the 777, but we know now, like the 767-AT it does not exist and cannot meet the maximum weight take off requirement.

We know nothing of the kind. Its been stated here ALOT by people who would support Airbus if they made thier hydraulic fluid with the blood of newborns, which is hardly PROOF.

All Boeing would have to do is quote a TOW/Payload for the 7K ft runway length. It wouldn't actualy have to meet that at the real MTOW to meet the requirement. It boggles the mind how people here spout utter nonsense day in day out thinking its the truth. The A330 is almost the same size as a 777 and yet somehow the 777 is this magical albatross incapible of doing anything at all because of those couple extra feet. Yet the HUGE difference in wingspan and length between the 767 and A330 is meaningless.


Oh and whoever posted the pictures of the Airbus "refueling" planes. ITS AN A310 NOT A A330. I might point out that reading skills goes a long way in life. The A330 still hasn't refueled a single plane. ITS A FACT. Why if Airbus is so completely done with the A330 tankers that its no risk at all has it not completed this basic step?

Why if its so risk free have 0 A330 planes been assembled anywhere outside of France, much less any assembled in a factory not even starting construction yet?

Am I to beleive that a design of an aircraft based entirely on existing parts that hasn't been built based on a tanker in actual service is riskier than the design of an aircraft based entirely on existing parts that hasn't been built based on a tanker not in actual service with a supply and manufacturing setup that doesn't even exist? That is what I am told here often. Yet the KC45 doesn't exist. Its parts are in testing on other aircraft but I might point out that the KC767AT has all its parts being used on actual in service aircraft. Where is the difference?


Oh and last I'd point out that the USAF has stated that the current boom used by EDAS is unacceptable for the actual production tankers. When will we see an actual boom that is up to thier standards? How does that not increase the program risk?


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6632 times:

I found this little bit to be to the most interesting and less biased comments recently on the tanker issue:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
After months of complaining to everyone who would listen (and to many of those who wouldn’t, apparently), Boeing softened its approach to this. In a May 22 press release, Boeing claimed the Air Force only “seemed” to favor a medium sized tanker:

“The Air Force Request for Proposals seemed to call for a medium-sized tanker designed to meet the unique needs of today’s expeditionary Air Force.” (Emphasis added.)

Well, did it? And did this preclude Boeing from offering a KC-777?

In the Rand Corp. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) conducted specifically for the eventual KC-X competition, Rand concluded “after about two years of extensive analysis that the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner,” notes a person close to the procurement process. Boeing’s KC-767 and Northrop’s KC-30 fall into the medium category; the KC-30, although about a third larger than the KC-767, nonetheless classifies as a medium airliner at 512,000 lbs. The KC-777 would have been based on the 777-200LRF, which has a maximum take-off weight of 766,000 lbs, according to Boeing’s website—and wouldn’t have classified as a medium tanker. For all the complaints about the KC-30 being a “large” tanker, in fact it isn’t by the Rand definition—it’s merely “larger” than the KC-767. Also, news articles of the era, such as those that can be found published by Flight International via www.flightglobal.com, placed the KC-30 and KC-767 in the same “medium” category and the 777 in the same “large” description as the Airbus A340.

The RFP didn’t specify weight categories but sought proposals for medium- to large tankers. Given the Rand AOA, the definitions of the airplane categories seem obvious, as do which airplanes fall into which categories.

The evidence, therefore, seems conclusive that all the rhetoric about the KC-30 being a “large” tanker is simply hyperbole without foundation; it’s simply “larger” than the KC-767.

….

The 777-200LRF rolled out of Boeing’s factory in May. First flight is due soon and first delivery is due later this year. But a full KC-777 development likely would have meant the first test airplane would not have been delivered to the Air Force in 2009; observers believe the initial production KC-777 could not have been delivered before 2014, largely due to the full production lines of the commercial 777 that are sold out until 2012 or 2013. Any KC-777 production would have to be integrated into the commercial line and—given the number of orders for the 777 even back in late 2006 when the KC-777 concept was revealed—would have had to displace commercial customers, a prospect considered highly unlikely.

Also, according to a person close to the competition, the Air Force’s RFP called for the KC-X’s engines to be able to fit into the Lockheed C-130 for transport—presumably for spares or repairs. The engines of the 777 are too big to fit, according to this person—which would have disqualified the KC-777. Additionally, since the KC-777 is significantly larger than the KC-30 in all respects, the runway loading, parking footprint and the whole host of other issues Boeing asserted as arguing against the KC-30 would have applied even more so against the larger KC-777.

But what of Boeing’s contention in its reply to NA KOA that there were public statements by the Air Force, as “verified” by Google searches, that the Air Force wanted a “medium” tanker? NA KOA says it could not find any.

Flight International reported the conflict within the Air Force over medium- and large tankers. In a March 14, 2006, item, Flight wrote that “USAF officials testifying to Congress have differed on which way to go, with [the]…Air Mobility Command favoring a mix of medium- and large tankers for flexibility.” The deputy for Air Force Acquisition “says the first 100 aircraft should ‘all look the same’ and be medium tankers on cost grounds.” [Emphasis added.]

The same article once again classified the KC-767 and KC-30 as medium tankers and the KC-777 and A340 as large tankers.

Another Flight article (January 2, 2007) quotes Lt. Gen. Donald Huffman of the Air Force’s acquisition office, saying, “first and foremost the KC-X is the next generation on aerial refueling.”

The Flight International articles lend at least some credence to the assertion by Boeing that there were public indications that the Air Force wanted a “medium” airplane. But there was also a very public debate among generals of the Air Force, who differed on the potential mission requirements that, at best, represented conflicting desires about exactly what airplane would best serve the Air Force.

Furthermore, Asmus responds that for Boeing to rely on news articles to make a multi-billion dollar decision about which airplane to offer to the Air Force—without private assurances from Air Force officials—is absurd on its face, and he wants to know who in the Air Force told Boeing it did not want a “large” airplane.

Asmus also points to a June 2008 article just published by Air Force Magazine, which contains this paragraph:

If Boeing was listening to senior serving generals, its notions about size were probably reinforced. Privately, top USAF officers frequently said they were looking for an ability to put many tankers on forward runways at once, since strike packages involve many airplanes, and each tanker can only refuel one other boom-receptacle airplane at a time. (Both the KC-30 and KC-767 can simultaneously refuel two other aircraft if the receiving airplanes are equipped with probe-and-drogue type refueling gear). However, those generals were quick to point out that they had no say in the acquisition process, and the outcome of the competition bore that out.



Boeing has softened its rhetoric on this issue and in fact some in the company believe this is the weakest argument it has; the technical and process issues are where officials believe they have the best chance of prevailing.

We may find out on June 19 if the GAO thinks this issue has any merit—for Boeing or for NA KOA.

By Scott Hamilton, June 2, 2008

I don't much care about Asmus' complaints but the article reveals some good info. The issue of the engines is a new one to me and definitely a good one to remove an aircraft from contention. As to the boom question, for obvious reasons Boeing will not share the technology they have developed with NG so this must be developed "new" and has been done so quite successfully. Though there are issues that must be addressed, the EADS does actually exist and can be measured and adjusted just like any development of technology goes. Just like Boeing has done and would have to do to bring their current 5th gen boom to the proposed 6th generation. The Osprey is another red-herring because the KC-45 can fly low and slow enough to refuel it, it just wasn't in the bid pack (Boeing did include and mention it in theirs).

I am very much looking forward to the GAO's report to put and end to the speculation (well OK it won't end) and provide some facts at last.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6632 times:

Personally I'm hoping that the GAO takes a very hard look at the decision. The recent shake-up at from the UASF Sec down is a pretty good indication that a lot of things were screwed up and a bit too casual for SecDef. The tanker decision may well fit into their problem areas - it certainly does politically.

Selecting a more expensive option is, in my opinion, a fair indication that the Generals have yet to understand the countries economic realities - even those that relate to Defense. With a $3 Trillion long term cost of the Iraq War I believe it's more important to focus capital expenditures on what is most critical and tankers are second tier in my book. For me it is smarter to shift money for primary fighter aircraft and continuing technological development.

Maybe everyone would be well served if the decision and funding was put off until after the election and inauguration. If McCain wins then Airbus should be a shoe in, but otherwise it's an open game and finances will be a critical factor in the direction the tanker goes.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6631 times:

While perusing through this article from the Guardian (a lot of which is a rehash of news reports earlier today), I saw a couple of interesting items...

Quote:
Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said his company's bid prevailed for many reasons, including lower development costs and risks, unit costs that were $10 million to $15 million lower per aircraft;

How does Airbus produce an airframe that is substantially larger than the competing article, ship the subassemblies thousands of miles to a final assembly process that has yet to be built, and still sell them for $10 - $15 million LESS per unit? I don't care how efficient Airbus' manufacturing processes are, their airplanes incorporate far more content alone given the airplane's substantially larger size (I won't even address their Euro/Dollar problem).

***

And for those that love to quote Loren Thomson, he seems to suddenly be taking up the recent mantra of a few A.Netters:

Quote:
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said it was reasonable for the Air Force to add cost to Boeing's proposal since it had never built the version of the 767 that it had proposed, but he questioned why it did not "find similar risk in the Northrop proposal, since they've never produced this plane in Alabama."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7582502



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6624 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big. And Yes, I know the KC-45 is "bigger" than the 767 but it is still a mid-size - albeit a large mid-size - plane, not a "large aircraft" as defined by the bid criteria.

The whole 777 option is a red herring.

Actually it is not. According to the Air Force filing with the GAO requesting Boeing's protest be dismissed, they discuss the aircraft size issue. What I find interesting is that Boeing has now gone quiet about the AF discouraging them from offering the 777. Here is an excerpt.


"In this case, the AF set forth its requirements for the KC-X tanker in the SRD, which made no reference to size...As such Boeing's protest that the replacement vehicle for the KC-135 is allegedly limited to medium aircraft is also insufficient basis for a protest because the SRD did not establish any size for the aircraft. Further, Boeing knew prior to the due date for its proposal that its chief rival and competitor, NG, "was back in the game" and would propose a bigger aircraft. Under these circumstances, Boeing's protest about the size of NG's successful aircraft is untimely, fails to state a sufficient basis for protest, and should be dismissed.

Likewise, Boeing's discussion regarding why it decided not to offer its larger 777 aircraft is interesting, but is an insufficient basis to support a protest.
[Air Force Request for Partial Summary Dismissal of Protest - Page 16-17]


Air Force Document here...

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/air_force_motion.pdf

Boeing's response here...

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Public...ResponsetoRequestsforDismissal.pdf


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6623 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10):
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said it was reasonable for the Air Force to add cost to Boeing's proposal since it had never built the version of the 767 that it had proposed, but he questioned why it did not "find similar risk in the Northrop proposal, since they've never produced this plane in Alabama."

Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern? I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month ago) and read 6609 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
[quoting Leeham] the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner

I'm not sure what the problem is that the article is trying to point out with regards to the 777. The Rand study states explicity that the USAF should procure a derivative that includes a "large" commercial airliner, which the 777 is. Obviously, it would have fit in just fine with the Rand findings.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
[quoting Leeham] The evidence, therefore, seems conclusive that all the rhetoric about the KC-30 being a "large" tanker is simply hyperbole without foundation; it's simply "larger" than the KC-767.

I think the hyperbole is the fact that no one meant that the KC-30 was a "large" tanker in the true specification. It's just a very large tanker relatively speeking. The hyperbole rests with the Leeham article.

By the way, I never knew Leeham was so unbiased.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern?

The issue isn't Alabama. The issue is a phantom supply chain and final assembly factory and employees that don't exist yet.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

I don't think anyone meant that, unless of course those people who are simple-minded and tend to be racist or stereotype certain geographies. Keep those comments where they belong - they don't belong on here.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8840 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6541 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10):
How does Airbus produce an airframe that is substantially larger than the competing article, ship the subassemblies thousands of miles to a final assembly process that has yet to be built, and still sell them for $10 - $15 million LESS per unit? I don't care how efficient Airbus' manufacturing processes are, their airplanes incorporate far more content alone given the airplane's substantially larger size (I won't even address their Euro/Dollar problem).

Your point has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing the item, it has to do with the margins being employed by the manufacturers on the items. Looking at the list prices on the 787 compared to the 330/350/777 suggests the points you have raised are nothing but red herrings.

All you comment says to me is that Boeing is gouging the US government as they deem it a military project. I suspect the KC-767AT base airframe is almost double of what UPS paid. I seem to recall similar observations made during the investigation into the failed KC-767 lease.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6525 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
Oh and whoever posted the pictures of the Airbus "refueling" planes. ITS AN A310 NOT A A330. I might point out that reading skills goes a long way in life.

It was I that posted the pictures and articles. I suggest that you go back and re-read the article. I was very specific about the content.

Seems that it is you that has to go and practice your reading skills.  Wink

The following picture is of the A330MRTT with the F18 of the RAAF. The BOOM system was demonstrated via an A313 on a F16 from the Portuguese Air Force.



February 12, 2008

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/program_update.html

Recent flight test milestones have demonstrated the maturity and low development risk for the state-of-the-art refueling system on Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker.

Evaluations with the aircraft's all-digital FRL 905E-series refueling pods were made using the Royal Australian Air Force's no. 1 A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), underscoring their "rock solid" stability at a full range of speeds and altitudes. For the testing, an F/A-18 combat aircraft made operational-type approaches behind the extended hoses and drogues as they trailed from the pods under the [/b]A330 MRTT's[/b] left and right wings - with the fighter moving into very close proximity at the pre-contact position.

The hoses and drogues were extended at lengths of 75 ft., 82 ft. and 90 ft. during multiple deployments at altitudes from 10,000 ft. to 35,000 ft., and at airspeeds ranging from 180 kts. to 300 kts. These deployments were made as the A330 MRTT flew in both level flight and while banking, reflecting typical operational profiles during refueling missions. In all scenarios, the Cobham/Sargent Fletcher-built FRL 905E-series hose and drogue system exhibited total and complete stability, which is critical for successful refueling of probe-equipped receiver aircraft.

During the same flight, the Royal Australian Air Force's A330 MRTT joined up with the A310 demonstrator aircraft that carries the Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS), confirming the ARBS' compatibility with large receiver aircraft. The ARBS was extended to various points throughout the refueling envelope as the A330 MRTT moved to within six inches of the all-electric fly-by-wire boom.


Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

About the 777 as better base aircraft for Boeing to select:
Hardly any topic generated as much posts in this forum like the topic "the A330 as tanker is too big vs. 767". That now the opposite shall be true and the real meaning suddenly is "the A330 is to small vs. a real winning-777 tanker" shows a fully screwed reasoning.

It seems any size of a Boeing aircraft is the right one. The 767 size would be brilliant just like the 777 size. Only the size between must be a black hole.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6378 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Your point has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing the item, it has to do with the margins being employed by the manufacturers on the items.

My point has everything to do with the cost of manufacturing an item.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
All you comment says to me is that Boeing is gouging the US government

That's just your opinion (biased against Boeing, but no surprise there) and it is not substantiated by any fact.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6376 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):

Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern? I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

Thank you!

As of the current time, Airbus has an engineering facility at BFM that does work on all the current widebody lines. There is also a Teledyne Continental Motors manufacturing plant, and Singapore Technologies/Mobile Aerospace MRO facility that does work for major carriers around the world. Not to mention that the Brookley Complex's mere existence is owed to the fact that it used to be Brookley Air Force Base.

We aren't dummies nor inexperienced.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6341 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
That now the opposite shall be true and the real meaning suddenly is "the A330 is to small vs. a real winning-777 tanker" shows a fully screwed reasoning.

No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

I'd also be interested to findout how the KC30 apparently requires far less runway than the A332. 2,650 -2,700M seems to be the only lenght I can find quoted for the A332. Thats 8,000ft. Seems like magic that it can see a MTOW bump on the same old platform and suddenly get 1/8th of its takeoff distance removed too. not attacking, just wondering what they changed from the A332 to get this extra performance


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

I am a size 7 shoe, I don't buy 12s and I don't buy 4s  Wink

Fred


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6311 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

Of course that what happened here. You have three options before you a station wagon, a minivan, or a full sized van. The station wagon won't carry everything you need and want it to carry but gets good mileage and is maneuverable, the van carries everything but is just too big, gets poor gas mileage, and the engine is hard to work on, meanwhile the minivan while bigger than you initially wanted, carries everything you want, gets decent if not great mileage, is decently maneuverable, and is within your price range, so of course you pick it. What's wrong whit that? Two planes were offered (with a third unoffered but thought of as an option) and the Air Force selected the one that presented the best total package, it was the largest of the two without being overly large.

You might remember the old story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, that will clarify the situation for you...... Though it's a children's story, the story goes straight to the point.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

Hi XT6Wagon,

Such a shame that you conveniently skipped my reply to you. What's wrong ? Maybe its rather hard to swallow the truth?

When I get something wrong, (at times happens) I'm the first to admit my errors, yet you simply prefer to skip over them, despite being proven wrong, and with detailed information to go with it.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4592 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
That's just your opinion (biased against Boeing, but no surprise there) and it is not substantiated by any fact.

except that there is precedent on "gouging" by B on tankers for the AF, ask that senator from AZ.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6158 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 23):
except that there is precedent on "gouging" by B on tankers for the AF, ask that senator from AZ.

Why don't you try Google'ing on Northrop Grumman and their infamous U.S. Navy contract wherein they deliberately sold defective parts to the Navy?

When you're done, come back and I'll give you more scandals to research pertaining to NG's contracting practices.  

[Edited 2008-06-13 14:50:48]


I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
25 Trex8 : The point is someone made a valid point and you thought it wasn't valid but it is, and what NG or anyone else has done has nothing to do with what B
26 RedFlyer : No, they didn't make a valid point. They claimed Boeing is gouging (present tense) the U.S. government and didn't offer any proof. And all you did wa
27 XT6Wagon : Um, I don't see what I have to respond too, the boom has never been used on the KC30. Which is 99.9% of the point for a KC-135 replacement since by t
28 Flipdewaf : OH NO! You know I think the USAF may have been wrong on their decision, quick go tell them they need to get the Boeing one, I'm sure they'll be very
29 EPA001 : If you would have read the other threads about this issue carefully, you would not be asking this question. You proved that by asking the question ab
30 Post contains links WINGS : XT6Wagon, It would seem that you suffer short term memory loss. I will gladly remind you what you affirmed and have yet to prove me wrong, or admit y
31 Post contains links and images Zeke : "The KC-30's superior performance characteristics ensure the tanker will be able to deploy from the largest number of airfields and airports possible
32 Post contains images RedFlyer : I find an interesting peculiarity in the above two statements - why is it NG/EADS refers to the KC-30 as "fully loaded" when touting its ability to t
33 Dougbr2006 : I think we shall all have a better idea after the 19th. I am sure that whichever way the GOA decide will have to be supported by lots of evidence and
34 Post contains links EPA001 : It may be written in different words, but they mean the same thing. The A330-MRTT can take-off at MTOW from a 7.000 ft balanced field runway. The B76
35 Zeke : That is not true, companies do not sit around and have the spare capacity just on the off chance the will pick up some work. The operational side of
36 RedFlyer : I'm sorry, but they do NOT mean the same thing. Not by a long shot. An airplane can take off "fully loaded", but it may be no where near its MTOW. No
37 RedFlyer : And given the KC-30's ~25% larger size, a lot of that additional fuel capacity will burn off just getting it to it's off-load station, loitering, and
38 Trex8 : because at that time they had higher priorities for other toys they wanted to fund like the F22 and C17?
39 EPA001 : Well, that is not entirely correct. Fuel consumption of the A330-MRTT is estimated at 6-9% higher on maximum take-off weight. And development measure
40 Astuteman : How do you work that out? Size and weight are just about irrelevant. It's DRAG that determines fuel burn....... The A330 baseline has a dramatically
41 RedFlyer : Weight is irrelevant? Really? I had no idea. I didn't realize airlines struggle to contain weight on their airplanes nor that Boeing and Airbus are a
42 EPA001 : In this question some important variables are missing. How far away are the F15s needing fuel? Meaning, how long do the tankers have to fly before th
43 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, you really need some oxygen. The Boeing price to the USAF for the KC-767AT was $120M (averaged) each fly away costs. Boeing lists the B-767-300
44 Alien : You mentioned that in an earlier thread/reply and I did not bother to comment. Let me ask you a question if size and weight are irrelevant. Why is it
45 RedFlyer : I'll let you pick the distance. But if you'd like, let's just say something that is very typical, such as 500nm. Again, something very typical: FL280
46 KC135TopBoom : Since about 20% of all USAF types are in some stage of maintenance at any one time,, having 100 KC-135E/Rs out of 512 is not unusual. Actually, that
47 Post contains links Trex8 : sl OT but anyone see this http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...alian-kc-30-tanker-conversion.html
48 EPA001 : Well I do not have all the data at hand. And since I am at the office, even when it it 6:30 pm, it would take too much time to actually calculate. Bu
49 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, the KC-30B/-45A is not based on the A-330-200E. The KC-45A, or KC-767AT would not be tactically (or strategically) used any differently than th
50 WINGS : Thanks Zeke, I stand corrected. Airbus is only building the A332/A333E. Just like Boeing has discontinued the 772 and 773 (non ER) Regards, Wings
51 Post contains links Zeke : Yes it is, all A330s being built now are the enhanced version, i.e. A330-200E or the A330-300E I have outlined what an A330E is in reply 22 of this t
52 Post contains links Baroque : I suggest this http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/184575 You probably have to read most of it. But it compares the the relat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


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

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
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

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format