ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:34 pm

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) announced today that it has submitted its Final Proposal Revision (FPR) for the U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker Program. The projected contract award is expected on or about Jan. 31, 2008 according to the Air Force.


I thought A.netters would be interested in this. This was found at the Northrop Grumman Home Page. Does less than 30 days give the government enough time to properly review this revised proposal?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:37 pm

Well they've been looking at it for years. Consider this the "final and best offer" by each manufacturer as opposed to their first one.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:35 pm

Any bets ? I am hoping for the KC 30 but my guts say KC 767 and as Steven Colbert I am listening to my gut  Smile
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:00 pm

It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:38 pm



Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.

As well he should!  Smile
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:08 pm

I believe the Boeing proposal will win, for a variety of reasons.

It will be viewed as the "home choice", though the KC-30A can legitimately claim the same. So while we will hear claims that "Boeing won only because it was American", those claims will be wrong.

It better meets the original (and likely current) needs of the USAF, even if the KC-30A is more capable overall. Just because an A330 does more then an A320 doesn't mean the A330 is always the better choice. And even though the actual purchase itself was dishonest, the fact was the USAF wanted it and wanted it enough to accept a crooked deal to get it.

The KC-30A will still be available for the USAF should they want something larger/more capable (for any role) thanks to the KC-30B and A330MRTT programs. If the KC-767 loses, then Boeing will close the line and the USAF will be in the position they are with the 707 - buying old passenger models and spending a mint refurbishing them for duty.

[Edited 2008-01-06 12:08:47]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:08 pm



Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.

Not while he is actively running for President.....
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:42 pm

Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:52 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that?

Bitterness and ignorance.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american, made by an american company Boeing.

The KC-767 draws on parts manufactured around the world. It is not, in any way, shape or form "totally American".

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing.

While the KC-30A prototype was built in TLS, production units will be built in MOB. Yes, they will use parts manufactured in the EU, but so does the 767.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:56 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that?

I see you haven't learned the ground rules here on Anet.

When an EU country purchases a EADS product in part because it is the "home grown" offering, there is nothing wrong with that decision.

When a non US or EU country purchases a Boeing or Lockheed product, and EADS sues, that's OK as well.

When the US government purchases a Boeing or Lockheed product, it was obviously a corrupt decision.

Understand?  sarcastic 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:30 pm

If Boeing win fair and square, then fair enough.

My recollection of the initial competition included Boeing "helping"the DOD to draw up the specification.

Surprise surprise, the specification looked like a B767.

A lot of folks have argued that the B767 is a better fit because it is more like the KC135 in capability. However, the requirement today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.

It all comes down to the DOD estimates of their future needs.

That is when things get tricky.

David
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:43 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10):
If Boeing win fair and square, then fair enough.

To some people, fair and square means one thing - "Boeing wins" or "EADS wins".  Sad

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10):
A lot of folks have argued that the B767 is a better fit because it is more like the KC135 in capability. However, the requirement today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.

Hence the reason the USAF created the requirement less then 10 years ago.  wave 
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:34 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker

Thanks. I'm getting tired of posting this rationale. Hopefully, the USAF will chose the path of least resistance (funding wise) and see the logic.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:43 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The KC-767 draws on parts manufactured around the world. It is not, in any way, shape or form "totally American".

It's definately more american than the A330 is.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
While the KC-30A prototype was built in TLS, production units will be built in MOB. Yes, they will use parts manufactured in the EU, but so does the 767.

once again the A330 is still more EU than american

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 12):
Thanks. I'm getting tired of posting this rationale. Hopefully, the USAF will chose the path of least resistance (funding wise) and see the logic.

If it comes down to a cost thing and the US chooses the 767 then everyone else needs to stay out of it, its their decision.

Suing the US for buying a US plane is like Suing British Airways because they ordered the A380
 
T773ER
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:13 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:47 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 6):
Not while he is actively running for President.....

You might be suprised. On the Republican debate tonight hosted by Fox News, Senator McCain mentioned the tanker deal not once but twice!
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
 
art
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:15 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10):
My recollection of the initial competition included Boeing "helping"the DOD to draw up the specification.

Which begs the question: has the DOD come up with a new independant specification (what it wants to buy, unskewed by what a supplier wants to sell it)?
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:16 am

Again I hope for the A330 not because it is an European aircraft but I really think it is more capable and the better choice.
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years. Sure the A330 is larger but it can also be used as a cargo aircraft as well and can be used instead of a C17 or C130 that are needed elsewhere. Also the A330 is chosen by some of the most important allies UK and Australia so you would have more commonality with them.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:48 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 16):
Again I hope for the A330 not because it is an European aircraft but I really think it is more capable and the better choice.
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years. Sure the A330 is larger but it can also be used as a cargo aircraft as well and can be used instead of a C17 or C130 that are needed elsewhere. Also the A330 is chosen by some of the most important allies UK and Australia so you would have more commonality with them.

Unfortunately, more capabilities may not be the most important factor. Instead, cost, will most likely be the largest weighed factor.

The USAF is facing a reality of having to pay for a lot of very expensive programs in the next 2 decades. Sacrifices may have to be made, so as not to break the bank.

Even if the 767 is a less capable aircraft, it may be wiser to purchase it on the fact that it saves the USAF millions of dollars in the short term. Allowing them to continue funding the F-22, F-35, C-17, C-5 modernization, C-27, all new satellites around 2015, more UAVs, CSAR-X, Tanker-X, base modernization and revitalization, etc... That's A LOT of money to be spent, compromises are bound to happen.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:56 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 16):
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years.

For you maybe, but you're not the one who is going to be purchasing them.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:54 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7):
Why does everyone say that the US govt choosing the 767 tanker is corrupt and stuff like that? It makes sense that a US govt would want to pick a plane that is totally american,made by an american company Boeing. The A330 is from another country, it would make sense for the US to choose the 767 developed by boeing. So why is McCain angry about the fact that we would choose the 767 Tanker

The bigger question is: Why bother going through a competitive process if you already know which product you're going to buy? Waste of money and time; the KC-767 could be in production a lot earlier if this possible charade wasn't being pulled off.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:37 pm



Quoting Art (Reply 15):
Which begs the question: has the DOD come up with a new independant specification (what it wants to buy, unskewed by what a supplier wants to sell it)?

The DoD always works with suppliers to draft specifications. They have to, since the DoD doesn't know what is possible and what isn't. And the suppliers can offer alternatives and suggestions to make the desired product cheaper or more effective.

It's no different then airlines working with the airframe manufacturers to develop new planes or new variants of existing planes.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:58 pm

QUESTION: Does it really make sense to buy the KC-45A, assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future? I realize it's been said that what's currently affordable will likely drive which airplane is selected, but in the long run won't that prove to be more expensive? With the KC-45 we're going to buy now and pay later. With the KC-30 we might more accurately buy now and save later. Doesn't that make more sense?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
art
Posts: 2670
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:06 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

Understood, thanks.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:08 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
Does it really make sense to buy the (KC-767), assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future?

Note - the KC-45 is the designation of the winning frame. Boeing's offer is/was the KC-767.

The advantage of buying the KC-767 now is that it meets today's requirements. The USAF is not intending the first KC-45 buy to be the only one. And since the KC-30B/A330MRTT program is guaranteed to continue regardless of whether or not the KC-30A wins the KC-45 RFP, it will remain an option for the USAF to meet "tomorrow's" requirements if the KC-767 alone is not enough. Also, it will have a shot at other programs, including possible/eventual replacements of the E-3, E-6, and E-8 platforms.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:50 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
QUESTION: Does it really make sense to buy the KC-45A, assuming it's not as capable as the KC-30A, "if" what the KC-30A can do will better serve the armed forces in the future? I realize it's been said that what's currently affordable will likely drive which airplane is selected, but in the long run won't that prove to be more expensive? With the KC-45 we're going to buy now and pay later. With the KC-30 we might more accurately buy now and save later. Doesn't that make more sense?

So if your car dies, and you need a new one, but have a stretched budget... do you go buy the New hybrid fuel car to save on gas, or do you buy the cheaper sedan that you can afford?

Come'on now, you're an adult. Presumably you know what it's like to know the difference between what you want and what you can afford.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:26 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24):
So if your car dies, and you need a new one, but have a stretched budget... do you go buy the New hybrid fuel car to save on gas, or do you buy the cheaper sedan that you can afford?

If I am planning to keep the car for 30 years I would buy the new hybrid fuel car, if I only want to keep it for 5 years I buy the car I can afford now and the hybrid after that.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
PlayLoud
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:46 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:00 pm

You think they will only have these planes for 30 years?
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:49 pm



Quoting Playloud (Reply 26):
You think they will only have these planes for 30 years?

At least  Wink
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:00 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 25):
If I am planning to keep the car for 30 years I would buy the new hybrid fuel car, if I only want to keep it for 5 years I buy the car I can afford now and the hybrid after that.

So you would buy a hybrid car at the expense of not being able to afford other critical items, in your life?

look, the whole point is that the USAF is unbelievably tight on money, right now. They have so many large ticket items running right now, they don't even know how they are going to successfully fund them all. It is not unreasonable to suggest they may opt for the 767, simply because they cannot find the money to buy the A330. Whether the Airbus product is superior, would be immaterial, since they couldn't afford it.

It seems like a lot of people involved in these anet debates are failing to explain the biggest question: Where will the money for a more expensive airframe, come from?

Someone, please tell me where the money to fund these projects, is coming from:

- C17s
- C5 modernization
- C130Js
- C27s
- F22
- F35
- CSARX
- Satellite replacement
- Base modernization
- A10C
- UAVs
- TankerX

And so much more. The Air Force is in a major financial jam at the moment, and a lot of people apparently fail to recognized this.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:25 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
The projected contract award is expected on or about Jan. 31, 2008 according to the Air Force.

I know someone in the SPO. Don't look for a decision before summer no matter what NG or Boeing say.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:42 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):
So you would buy a hybrid car at the expense of not being able to afford other critical items, in your life?

No, all I am saying is that if I make a long term investment be it a car or in this case an airplane instead of saving a few bucks I buy the better variant rather than buy the cheap variant and life with it for the next decades.
If my car breaks down and I have to buy a new one although I am short of cash I won´t buy an expensive hybrid I buy the cheapest one but will I keep that only as long as I can afford the one I original want.
If you plan to use a tanker for 30-50 years don´t look at the low acquisition costs now but all the costs you will have over that period that is all I am saying. If the Boeing is cheaper to buy and to operate for 50 years then buy it but if the Airbus will save you some money over its lifespan with the air force it is better to choose this one
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:26 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
It will be the 767 as the KC-45. Northrop will then immediately protest the decision and Senator McCain will grandstand on CNN and MSNBC to immediately launch an investigation into the "flawed, corrupt" selection process and delay the tanker until sometime in the 2020s.

As well he should!

How many campaign dollars does he get from NG (since he cannot take any from EADS)?

What happened to his commitment to the "troops"?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
And even though the actual purchase itself was dishonest, the fact was the USAF wanted it and wanted it enough to accept a crooked deal to get it.

Okay, Stitch. I'll call you on this. This is not the $23B KC-767 lease deal. People went to jail over that one. This is the $40B KC-X (KC-45A buy, not lease) program. So, what exactly is dishonest and currupt that makes this a "crooked deal" for the USAF to take?

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10):
My recollection of the initial competition included Boeing "helping"the DOD to draw up the specification.

Again, that was during the tanker lease deal. Neither Boeing, NG/EADS, of LM "helped" the USAF (the DOD had nothing to do with the specs.) draw up the new tanker specifications in the KC-X (KC-45A) program.

Quoting Columba (Reply 16):
Again I hope for the A330 not because it is an European aircraft but I really think it is more capable and the better choice.

It does not matter to the USAF what you or I think is the best airplane for the KC-45 program. It only matter what the USAF thinks and what best fits them and the budget.

Quoting Columba (Reply 16):
The 767 is for me an outdated aircraft and I think it does not make sense to buy a 25 years old design and fly it for another 30 years. Sure the A330 is larger but it can also be used as a cargo aircraft as well and can be used instead of a C17 or C130 that are needed elsewhere. Also the A330 is chosen by some of the most important allies UK and Australia so you would have more commonality with them.

Well then, you must also believe it makes no sense to continue to fly 50 year old designs for another 30+ years, like the B-52, C-130, or KC-135.

Both the A-330 and B-767 will be able to supplement the C-17, C-130, and A-400 cargo airplane forces.

Commonality between different Air Forces really doesn't add much to overall capability of those Combined Air Forces. Remember, the RAAF will also fly the F-111, Wedgetail, P-3C, and P-8 the USAF doesn't fly. The same with the RAF, they fly (or will fly) the Nimrod, A-400M, Typhoon, Tornado, and other aircraft the USAF doesn't fly, too. So, adding the A-330MRTT into this really isn't an issue.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
So, what exactly is dishonest and corrupt that makes this a "crooked deal" for the USAF to take?

Nothing. My comments referred to the original lease deal. I was just noting that the USAF wanted the KC-767 then - even with a lease deal that was not financially to their favor - so if they choose it now, it should not be seen as some great surprise.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:35 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):
Someone, please tell me where the money to fund these projects, is coming from:

- C17s
- C5 modernization
- C130Js
- C27s
- F22
- F35
- CSARX
- Satellite replacement
- Base modernization
- A10C
- UAVs
- TankerX

And so much more. The Air Force is in a major financial jam at the moment, and a lot of people apparently fail to recognized this.

You are absolutly correct, the USAF (or any other US Military Branch) doesn't have the money it needs to do all the things that HAVE to be done.

With that in mind, I look for the C-5 modernization program (C-5M) to become a lot smaller than it is today, if it doesn't get out right cancelled. The A-10C program will be cancelled, as will many base modernization programs. the UAVs will be bought in smaller numbers, CSAR-X will be cancelled, the USAF does not want to deal with all the political crap on it now. It will come back in a few years as a new program with the USAF joining the USMC on the CH-53K program. The C-27 program will be dropped and more C-130J (perhaps some streched -30Js) bought. The C-17 program will end at 220 airplanes. The Tanker-X program will be cut to 157 airplanes, then cut again to 120 airplanes, and finally end up at 100 airplanes. Thje KC-Y and KC-Z programs will be cancelled as will the 2018 Bomber program.

Quoting Captoveur (Reply 29):
I know someone in the SPO. Don't look for a decision before summer no matter what NG or Boeing say.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Nothing. My comments referred to the original lease deal. I was just noting that the USAF wanted the KC-767 then - even with a lease deal that was not financially to their favor - so if they choose it now, it should not be seen as some great surprise.

The lease KC-767 was more like the JASDF KC-767J, it was not even as advanced as the Italian AF KC-767A. Now, under the KC-45 program, Boeing is offering a totally different tanker package they call the KC-767ADV. It will be based on a B-767 model not currently produced or offered to anyone, the B-767-200LRF. This new model KC-767 is significantly different than the KC-767A/J models currently in production. The same is true for the A-330MRTT (KC-30B). Each country that has ordered the A-330 tanker has chosen a different version, and the version offered to the USAF is no different. The KC-30A offered to the USAF is not the same tanker the RAAF or RAF is getting.

The KC-X program deserves to stand on its own. It has no relationship to the former lease program. The two offered KC-767s are different airplanes, the two programs are different.

Even though I fully support the USAF buying the KC-767ADV over the KC-30A, I believe the USAF giving a full and fair evaluation to both airplanes. They are comparing them to the current needs and future requirements, and budgets, of the USAF.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:05 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
When an EU country purchases a EADS product in part because it is the "home grown" offering, there is nothing wrong with that decision.

come one, stop generalizing. It doesn;t make future discussions any better. There are many countries that bought American and still are buying American:

the Netherlands
UK
Italy
Norway (not EU btw)
Danmark
Swiss (not EU)
Greece
Poland
Turkey (not EU)

list is not complete BTW

People don't moan about it, they know they bought the best product for them. It;'s usually only France and Germany (with the largest workshares in EADS) that complain about the other's not buying EU-grown (read French and German) products. there are 27 countries in the EU BTW

[Edited 2008-01-09 10:07:12]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:25 pm

There are those people in the world who think of the EU and France as the same country, some of those people are Americans. Sometimes even me.

Remember, to the rest of the world, the concept of the European Union is s difficult concept to understand. Here is a continent where the individual countries have centuries of wars fought between them, now they all love each other.

The Americans may find out what an EU is like as many here are talking about a North American Union (NAU with Canada, the US, Mexico, and all the Central American countries ), as an economic counter to the EU (which, BTW, is not an economic threat to the US).

I don't recall many Americans yelling that France, Germany, or other EU states (countries?) should be buying hundreds of C-130Js and hundreds of C-17s over the A-400M.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 34):
There are many countries that bought American and still are buying American:

That is very true, as is many EU products are sold in the US, including the C-27.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):
look, the whole point is that the USAF is unbelievably tight on money, right now. They have so many large ticket items running right now, they don't even know how they are going to successfully fund them all. It is not unreasonable to suggest they may opt for the 767, simply because they cannot find the money to buy the A330. Whether the Airbus product is superior, would be immaterial, since they couldn't afford it.

Many including myself have speculated that NG (via EADS via Airbus) will offer a bid with their KC-330 at or below the cost of the KC-767ADV - in that case could the USAF still deny it in favor of the KC-767ADV if it were actually the more expensive bid?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):
Someone, please tell me where the money to fund these projects, is coming from:

Our paychecks and all that gold heavily guarded at Ft. Knox to back it up!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
What happened to his commitment to the "troops"?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Okay, Stitch. I'll call you on this. This is not the $23B KC-767 lease deal. People went to jail over that one. This is the $40B KC-X (KC-45A buy, not lease) program. So, what exactly is dishonest and currupt that makes this a "crooked deal" for the USAF to take?

If the USAF were to actually pay the same or more for the KC-767ADV...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
You are absolutly correct, the USAF (or any other US Military Branch) doesn't have the money it needs to do all the things that HAVE to be done.

Which is why in the latest AvWeek there is an article about those in the Pentagon who are encouraging the USAF to purchase the EA-18G as the latest attempt to make a modified B-52 EAQ platform had risen upwards of $7 Billion and was no longer viable; the same goes for the USMC in my opinion who someone think they can afford to continue to operate the EA-6B's even after the USN retires their last one as well as trying to find the money to make an EAW variant out of thier STOVL single-seat F-35B's on top of that - completely chimerical!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
I look for the C-5 modernization program (C-5M) to become a lot smaller than it is today, if it doesn't get out right cancelled.

If they don't modernize all their C-5's than they are going to need another replacement for them which would all but assuredely cost much, much more....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
The A-10C program will be cancelled,

Right now the A-10 is too valuable of platform for the USAF to retire from it's inventory - and the F-16 and the F-35A will never be able to replace it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
CSAR-X will be cancelled, the USAF does not want to deal with all the political crap on it now.

Actually would be a smart move - give that program to the USA(rmy) who should have been the ones buying more HH-47's and conducting SPECOPS mission in the first place.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
Thje KC-Y and KC-Z programs will be cancelled as will the 2018 Bomber program.

How again is it cheaper to design from the ground up an all new bomber versus just building all new B-2's?

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 34):
People don't moan about it, they know they bought the best product for them. It;'s usually only France and Germany (with the largest workshares in EADS) that complain about the other's not buying EU-grown (read French and German) products. there are 27 countries in the EU BTW

Western Europe is the closest ally to the United States it has and will ever have - one can argue against a total globalization of our economy and such but one cannnot deny the inherent relationship between Western Europe and the USA.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
There are those people in the world who think of the EU and France as the same country, some of those people are Americans. Sometimes even me.

But I would argue that there is a big difference between a Jock-Strap Chirac France and the one now led by Sarkozy.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
North American Union (NAU with Canada, the US, Mexico, and all the Central American countries ),

Maybe the US and Canada but eveything south of the Rio Grande is a 3rd world nation who can't even wipe their own ass.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
That is very true, as is many EU products are sold in the US, including the C-27.

As well as VW, BMW, Mini,, Mercedes, Porsche, and Ferrari.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:23 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
Many including myself have speculated that NG (via EADS via Airbus) will offer a bid with their KC-330 at or below the cost of the KC-767ADV - in that case could the USAF still deny it in favor of the KC-767ADV if it were actually the more expensive bid?

The DoD has said that contract price alone will not determine the winner because too many times in the past they have been burned by choosing the "lowest bid" and then seeing the price shoot into the stratosphere as the "true cost" came to the fore.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:06 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
The DoD has said that contract price alone will not determine the winner because too many times in the past they have been burned by choosing the "lowest bid" and then seeing the price shoot into the stratosphere as the "true cost" came to the fore.

And this is going to change anytime soon? The Lakota was a off the shelf purchase, and even in doing so they stated that changes had to be made to the a/c, better engines, air condition etc, so what exactly does off the shelf mean? Now the presidential helo is slightly different, but even so, before even getting the first a/c there are already plans for a phased upgrade, better engines etc.

Now what would be interesting is if somehow EADS were able to offer a bid for their larger and more expensive a/c that is lower than the older and cheaper B-767, now would that also not be crooked, or is Boeing the only one who makes crooked deals? It would certainely be dumb of Boeing to rework their a/c to make it cost equivalent of the EADS a/c especially when they know the crunch that the US Air Force finds itself as it relates to money. If Boeing were smart, not only would they have made their offer of the F-18 buy to the Navy and the Marines, how about pushing more C-17's and tankers together, like a two for one and a half sort of thing, the air force does want and need more C-17's but they are not pushing the buy because they want more F-22's etc, it may not be a family of a/c but since from one manufacturer, they could offer cost savings.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:40 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
If the USAF were to actually pay the same or more for the KC-767ADV...

How would that be dishonest? There are more aircraft--far more--involved in this deal.  Yeah sure

Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
Now what would be interesting is if somehow EADS were able to offer a bid for their larger and more expensive a/c that is lower than the older and cheaper B-767, now would that also not be crooked,

If they low ball the bid on the first 80 or so fixed price, stand by for a political flame war of the first order.... BTW, what I'm hearing (no link, sorry) is that EADS/N.G. may do just that.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:15 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
Which is why in the latest AvWeek there is an article about those in the Pentagon who are encouraging the USAF to purchase the EA-18G as the latest attempt to make a modified B-52 EAQ platform had risen upwards of $7 Billion and was no longer viable;



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
I look for the C-5 modernization program (C-5M) to become a lot smaller than it is today, if it doesn't get out right cancelled.

If they don't modernize all their C-5's than they are going to need another replacement for them which would all but assuredely cost much, much more....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
The A-10C program will be cancelled,

Right now the A-10 is too valuable of platform for the USAF to retire from it's inventory - and the F-16 and the F-35A will never be able to replace it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
CSAR-X will be cancelled, the USAF does not want to deal with all the political crap on it now.

Actually would be a smart move - give that program to the USA(rmy) who should have been the ones buying more HH-47's and conducting SPECOPS mission in the first place.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
Thje KC-Y and KC-Z programs will be cancelled as will the 2018 Bomber program.

How again is it cheaper to design from the ground up an all new bomber versus just building all new B-2's?

The USAF can always look at bring back the EF-111s, as they are in storage, not dismantling for the RAAF F-111 support programs. The EA-18G program is running into hugh cost overruns, too. Just like the EB-52H program is.

The big problem facing the C-5M, A-10C, CSAR-X, KC-Y/Z, and 2018 Bomber programs is the short sitedness of Congress. No money, no programs.

BTW, the 2018 Bomber program will not replace the B-1, B-2, or (currently) B-52. It will replace the F-15E.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:54 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
And this is going to change anytime soon? The Lakota was a off the shelf purchase, and even in doing so they stated that changes had to be made to the a/c, better engines, air condition etc, so what exactly does off the shelf mean? Now the presidential helo is slightly different, but even so, before even getting the first a/c there are already plans for a phased upgrade, better engines etc.

Well it is one thing when the customer (the DoD) starts filing scores of "scope changes" that drive up the price. If the contract says "provide X" and that is what the winner bids and wins on, and then the customer says "we actually want Y"...

It is another when the bidder knows (or has a strong hint) that they can't meet the contract requirements as defined, yet bid anyway at the lowest price, knowing that once they are in, they can just keep going back to the trough.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:19 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Well it is one thing when the customer (the DoD) starts filing scores of "scope changes" that drive up the price. If the contract says "provide X" and that is what the winner bids and wins on, and then the customer says "we actually want Y"...

Those cost increases are usually accounted for, along with the traditional 5%-10% profit in the contract.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
It is another when the bidder knows (or has a strong hint) that they can't meet the contract requirements as defined, yet bid anyway at the lowest price, knowing that once they are in, they can just keep going back to the trough.

Years ago, there was a contract vetting process that eliminated these contractors from bidding to begin with. Congress saw fit to change the rules in the late 1980s, to make the process fair to all who wanted to bid. It makes no difference if the contractor is capable of completeing the contract. The only requirement today, for contractors is an unassisted ability to cash the checks.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
The only requirement today, for contractors is an unassisted ability to cash the checks.

Or endorse them over to Congresscritter's re-election funds.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:06 am



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
When an EU country purchases a EADS product in part because it is the "home grown" offering, there is nothing wrong with that decision.

come one, stop generalizing. It doesn;t make future discussions any better. There are many countries that bought American and still are buying American:

I guess I didn't include enough  sarcastic  icons in my post.

Many EU countries buy American. Just like we buy more than a few EU products.

My comment was directed at some of the one way Anet posters who wrap themselves in the EU flag when it is an EU purchase, but expect the US to "only buy the best product" when it is an US purchase.

Government purchases will always be tilted to favor home-grown industry. That is natural. Private industry doesn't follow that model, which can be seen by the many Airbus only airlines in the US, and the Boeing only airlines outside the US.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:20 am

Some people seem to assume that the USAF can not afford to buy the plane to do the job specified.

However, I see not reason why the spec should not include price, (e g the airframe plus specified spares must be no more tha $XM.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:45 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 46):
However, I see not reason why the spec should not include price, (e g the airframe plus specified spares must be no more tha $XM.

They do, in the budgeted amount. For example the KC-45A program is budgeted at $40B US for all 179 airplanes (which includes the cost of the four prototypes, then thier final conversion into the production version)
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:20 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
as an economic counter to the EU (which, BTW, is not an economic threat to the US).

we are already a much larger economy. We do have problems coordinating properly and it takes ages before we all alligned our interests. However, being able to that at all is already unique. Secondly, the amount of real production industry has been cut in half over the last decades, with stuff moving to China mostly. If I were you I would be worried.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
That is very true, as is many EU products are sold in the US, including the C-27.

true, but in amounts of volume and money, that is only a fraction. However if the tanker is won by EADS, this will significantly change.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
As well as VW, BMW, Mini,, Mercedes, Porsche, and Ferrari.

there's far less money in that. BTW, don't forget how many you import from Asia, and also don't forget that a fare share of the cars you mentioned are built in the US (BMW)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
The USAF can always look at bring back the EF-111s, as they are in storage, not dismantling for the RAAF F-111 support programs. The EA-18G program is running into hugh cost overruns, too. Just like the EB-52H program is.

The big problem facing the C-5M, A-10C, CSAR-X, KC-Y/Z, and 2018 Bomber programs is the short sitedness of Congress. No money, no programs.

BTW, the 2018 Bomber program will not replace the B-1, B-2, or (currently) B-52. It will replace the F-15E.

I'v read that planners are getting worried about how far they will be able to penetrate the next 15 years with the current inventory. You can be very confident that the B-2 successor is "on the drawing tables" as we speak.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 44):
My comment was directed at some of the one way Anet posters who wrap themselves in the EU flag when it is an EU purchase, but expect the US to "only buy the best product" when it is an US purchase.

I understand Halls120. Best thing is to just ignore them and don't follow them in their reasoning
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 47):
You can be very confident that the B-2 successor is "on the drawing tables" as we speak.

That is correct. My point was only directed at the 2018 Bomber program, which is the F-15E replacement.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 47):
the amount of real production industry has been cut in half over the last decades, with stuff moving to China mostly. If I were you I would be worried.

Yes, the Chinese economy is growing and will become a huge threat to both the EU and the US. Even more worrisome is the huge military build up of the PLA, PLAAF, and PLAN.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 47):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
That is very true, as is many EU products are sold in the US, including the C-27.

true, but in amounts of volume and money, that is only a fraction. However if the tanker is won by EADS, this will significantly change.

I agree, but the significant change that an EADS tanker award will be is more political than anything else, for US Politicians. From a pure military prospective, the USAF could live with either the KC-30 or KC-767. There may have to be some changes made, as I believe the smaller airplane (KC-767) is the one all the future deployements are written for.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: New Tanker Decision By End Of January

Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
Yes, the Chinese economy is growing and will become a huge threat to both the EU and the US. Even more worrisome is the huge military build up of the PLA, PLAAF, and PLAN.

nevertheless, we still have retained a significant amount of real producing factories and have our own "low-cost" zone in the new eastern EU states. Another reason is that here unions have a very large influence and the;ve succeeded in keeping the majority of production here, which is a good thing in the long run. The US has employed a much more short-run policy which generated huge cost savings and boosted profits, but will generate huge problems for the makro economy the next decades. Of course those people who benefited the most from those early cost savings will be floating around their yachts somewhere.

It's imperative to have a certain percentage of skilled workers in your professional population to have a healthy economy. Bookkeepers, accountants, lawyers alone won't be able to do it for you for long.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
I agree, but the significant change that an EADS tanker award will be is more political than anything else, for US Politicians. From a pure military prospective, the USAF could live with either the KC-30 or KC-767. There may have to be some changes made, as I believe the smaller airplane (KC-767) is the one all the future deployements are written for.

I respect your opinion and input on this matter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests