Yazoo
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 3:26 am

Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:57 pm

OMFG, sorry but this is getting ridiculous... The pentagon is truly making a mockery out of this bid. I can totally understand Boeing's frustration...

EADS to re-enter tanker competition, Again....
Purple Pride!
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:55 pm

Other than asking for asking for/granting a brief extension, what exactly have EADS and the Pentagon done that's so ridiculous? It's not like Boeing hasn't ever asked for extensions in past.
 
Yazoo
Topic Author
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 3:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:54 pm

Well I'm sorry, but This has dragged on for as long as I can remember. First Boeing is selected (back in 2003) then the program is put on the backburner for some time. Fast forward to 2008, now its EADS that wins the contract, just for it to be cancelled again. A month or so ago, EADS drops out of the race and Boeing is finally seen as the sole contender. Now EADS re-enters again which will probably drag the process even longer, I mean c'mon! this is worst than a mexican telenovelas...
Purple Pride!
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:25 am

Now that a foreign entity can bid without a US partner, let the Russians in too. It will be interesting to see how much more price pressure will be there for A and B.

Come on Yuri, you can win. 
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4574
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:37 am

Pot... Kettle... Black... Again...

Sigh...   Can we have a law that makes it illegal for PR people from each company to release media releases until the process has finished?

I want the Russians to bid as well - the sooner they do, the sooner there will be real value for money for the US taxpayers.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1427
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:16 am

Quoting Yazoo (Reply 2):
Well I'm sorry, but This has dragged on for as long as I can remember. First Boeing is selected (back in 2003) then the program is put on the backburner for some time. Fast forward to 2008, now its EADS that wins the contract, just for it to be cancelled again. A month or so ago, EADS drops out of the race and Boeing is finally seen as the sole contender. Now EADS re-enters again which will probably drag the process even longer, I mean c'mon! this is worst than a mexican telenovelas...

Northrop Grumman dropped out of the race, EADS North America is about to enter the race.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:01 am

Strong rhetorics are needed to push an aircraft that has been outclassed two times already on the civil market. In my ears there is a tune of desperation...
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:38 am

“While we are disappointed in the bid submission delay, we hope for a fair and transparent competition free of any additional changes intended to accommodate a non-U.S. prime contractor.

 

Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.

Now them stating this..   

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:09 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 6):
Strong rhetorics are needed to push an aircraft that has been outclassed two times already on the civil market. In my ears there is a tune of desperation...

Well, the Sherman tank was not the best in WWII but it worked, guess in this day and age for a tanker a/c it must be the best of the best of the best, bring on the 787 or A350 since they both are putting the 767 and A330 out to pasture.  
Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.

I know that being the fair and open minded person that you are you will correct the second to third and the equivalent for the 2008 debacle will be posted shortly, as someone else in this thread said

Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Pot... Kettle... Black... Again...
Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Sigh... Can we have a law that makes it illegal for PR people from each company to release media releases until the process has finished?

How about we add the fans to this sentiment, but you have to question, what makes us on this site any different from those working for these companies, we breathe the same air, we want the same things for out children, etc. etc. etc.)
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:12 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
Well, the Sherman tank was not the best in WWII but it worked, guess in this day and age for a tanker a/c it must be the best of the best of the best, bring on the 787 or A350 since they both are putting the 767 and A330 out to pasture.

My remark was strictly about the 767. I agree even the A330 is not the youngest airframe (though it is one of those that outclassed the 767 on the civil market). And indead the 787 beats any of these two.

But IMO 787/A350 are not good candidates:
- More expensive
- Sold out
- Unmature
- Fuselage clearance to the ground (I think an adult can not walk under a 787 without banging his head! Check the pics)

What about the A350? If I review my comment from above I have to revise it:
The proposed Boeing tanker is based on an aircraft that has been outclassed already THREE times on the civil market!
By A330, 787 and A350! E.g. in case of Aeroflot, Asiana, Hawaiian the A358 will be used to replace 767's!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:31 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
But IMO 787/A350 are not good candidates:
- More expensive
- Sold out
- Unmature
- Fuselage clearance to the ground (I think an adult can not walk under a 787 without banging his head! Check the pics)

But the reason the KC-135s are being retired is mostly due to metal fatigue, something these new airframes readily address.

Seems stupid to be buying new metal airframes when you know the limiting factor on them is metal fatigue.

Seems much smarter to make the KC-135s last a bit longer by bringing KC-135Es up to KC-135R standard.

It'd easily buy us another decade to wait for the CFRP birds to mature.

And yes, the 787/A350 will be much larger than the KC-135s.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.
Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
I know that being the fair and open minded person that you are you will correct the second to third and the equivalent for the 2008 debacle will be posted shortly, as someone else in this thread said

You forget that not getting punished means they never did anything wrong. So only Boeing is bad because one of their people were punished and they paid a fine.

Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris. John Stewart calls it "Ballsheimzers" and it certainly applies. It's neither a nice nor a productive attitude for me to have, but to quote Popeye, "I've stands all that I can and I can't stands no more".

[Edited 2010-04-21 06:46:51]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:58 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
But the reason the KC-135s are being retired is mostly due to metal fatigue, something these new airframes readily address.

Corrosion, not fatigue. During the cold war, KC-135s sat around and did very little flying (comparatively to todays passenger operations), that is why the airframes have such low time on them. But they were not built by Boeing to have a long life, it was common in those days for parts like the skins not to have corrosion inhibitor applied prior to assembly.

This is like comparing a fire tender that sits in a fire house and gets a call out every other day, and a commercial truck that is on the road 12+ hours a day.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Seems stupid to be buying new metal airframes when you know the limiting factor on them is metal fatigue.

The A330 was certified last year to have the same heavy maintenance periods as the 787, I would not be surprised to learn that the highest time A330 has already taken over the highest time KC-135 (probably a RC-135) airframe. I would think that many A330 are averaging over 12 hours flying a day, every day.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:14 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Seems much smarter to make the KC-135s last a bit longer by bringing KC-135Es up to KC-135R standard.

I don't contradict this logic. It has some merits.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris

If it would be arrogance and hubris then every pro-EADS statement could be negated with a better argument. Yet much more than half of my statements (if you mean me) straightforward never get challenged, questioned or even answered (* see below). If I am wrong convince me and I will join your line of defence. Your bias (I have no problem with it and I admit you are quite balanced) seems to have frustrated you because all reasoning efforts don't seem to overcome the "adversary" protest.

But you have to agree that the reasoning in Boeings favor is far from bullet proof. Every campaign were 767's are/were pitched against A330's never has been a walk in the park for Boeing. It is natural that the effort to make a 767 look better than a A330 can be countered in many aspects. In short words: in 2010 the 767 is an easy target to beat.

In 2010 you have to bet on a high level of ignorance to sell somebody the 767's as high-tech (to a lesser degree this is valid for the A330 as well, though significant A330 sales in the presence of 787's/A350's give it at least in some aspects the appearance of current technology).

*: E.g. my claim that no 767 will ever offer the same capability per spent $ has never been rebuted convincingly. It is not possible because the civil airliner market has spoken about that. But if it is a fact, why claim that the cheapest solution should win? If every invested $ clearly returns less?

The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number? e.g. if the 787 would be pitched against the 767 the 767 would still win because the price is a bit lower. Do you tell me that if the 767 would be 5% cheaper but 40% less capable that this RFP sets a proper criteria if the 767 wins? No, it does not and it must be allowed to tell it.

Fix minimum requirements & fix unit number are hardly seen in the business world and guarantee less than the best outcome. It can lead to a situation where the cheapest solution is X% cheaper but the lost capability (or "not realized" capability) is several times X%.

The 767 is so inferior in capability-per-invested-$ that you can spot nervous Boeing statements and nervous Boeing fans everwhere... I for example am completely relaxed in this. If the table is so tilted there is realisticly nothing to expect for the A330. It is amusing to read how the 767 is made "big" for a last time. Retirement in the civil sector already has started. That is no easy prerequisite to sport it as newest USAF asset. In reality the 767 is an extremely honourable aircraft and has well earned its retirement. I would almost say it does not deserve this last battle that seems unwinable by merits (spider chart).

This is not the picture of the 767 that I want to keep in remembrance: the 767 as old fashioned tanker in the biggest air force selected by strong political backing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:35 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number? e.g. if the 787 would be pitched against the 767 the 767 would still win because the price is a bit lower. Do you tell me that if the 767 would be 5% cheaper but 40% less capable that this RFP sets a proper criteria if the 767 wins? No, it does not and it must be allowed to tell it.

We don't know that A330 is 5% more expensive and 40% more capable. As above, we do know it can haul more fuel but burns more fuel to do so.

And in my mind it is valid to choose a less capable item at a lower cost, even if the cost is not in scale to the decreased capability.

We all do that all the time in the things we purchase. Why buy the 6 seat car when you only use 4? Why buy the 4 CPU server when your software can only use 1?

It's nice to speculate about manipulation, but it'd be nice to have some actual evidence of manipulation.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
This is not the picture of the 767 that I want to keep in remembrance: the 767 as old fashioned tanker in the biggest air force selected by strong political backing.

Any outcome now will be tainted by strong political backing. On the EADS side we had McCain and Murtha, we now have Trent Lott and Sarkozy, and Sen Shelby holding up DoD appointees. On the Boeing side we had the old scandal and now we have Norm Dicks throwing his weight around.

Getting an order for 179 frames is just too much pork for anyone to restrain themselves.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
Every campaign were 767's are/were pitched against A330's never has been a walk in the park for Boeing.

And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

There is this "implied truth" put forward again and again by certain people (not yourself) that the day Airbus announced the A330-200, Boeing never recorded another 767 order.

If one repeats a lie often enough, eventually some people start to believe it's true. But it isn't.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
In 2010 you have to bet on a high level of ignorance to sell somebody the 767's as high-tech (to a lesser degree this is valid for the A330 as well, though significant A330 sales in the presence of 787's/A350's give it at least in some aspects the appearance of current technology).

If the USAF valued technology as the prime motivator, they'd have demanded a new-build tanker. But what they value (truthfully, what they have been forced to value) as the prime motivator is cost, which is why they have to buy a commercial airliner-based model. And all that fancy technology the A330-200 has makes it more expensive.

The US Air Force is not US Airways. They have a different set of criteria they are evaluating these aircraft on than a commercial airline would. Many, if not most, of the arguments put forward here are how the A330-200 is such a great product for a commercial carrier, it should therefore be a great product for a military carrier because, well, they're the same, aren't they?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best.

Just as the USAF went to great lengths with the old RFP to make the A330 look best.

What grinds my gears is the belief that it's okay for the US government (through the USAF) to engineer an Airbus win, but not for the US government to engineer a Boeing win - doubly so when I have yet to see the government actually doing so, while we have confirmation (through the GAO report) that the USAF did.

The RFP criteria is designed to get a minimum set of capabilities for the lowest price possible. Because Boeing has an "old", "outdated" and "unwanted by the market" design on offer, they can meet that price. But because Airbus has a "new", "modern" and "loved by the market" design on offer that just also happens to cost a good bit more than Boeing's offer and therefore probably can't meet the price, it's all just totally unfair and manipulative.

If EADS wants to win this, then all they have to do is beat the price Boeing can offer with their PoS 767-based product. Airbus Military will lose money on every frame, but they'll have the prestige of beating Boeing out of providing the USAF with their tanker.

And maybe this will allow EADS to successfully soak other militaries on their A330 MRTT purchases to make up the losses.

[Edited 2010-04-21 09:26:51]
 
wingman
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:19 pm

And what our European friends from Germany, France and Spain need to explain is when and what the offset procurement will consist of. I, for one, need to see a clear timeline for an equivalent purchase of military hardware from LM, NG or Boeing of the same value as what EADS would supply to the US in this Tanker deal. If it's not going to be in troop transport or fighter jets then I have a tough time understanding why it is that the United States has to willingly cut its own veins for the continued economic advantage of Europe when we ourselves are in desperate need of restoring our own economic balance in both trade and manufacturing vis a vis Europe. It's an odious topic but it lies at the very heart of the issue. As inherently stupid as most of our politicians are they do seem just intelligent enough to understand that spraying huge wads of trade balance-busting government cash all over Toulouse and Sevilla is simply moronic.

I'm just like my friends from Spain, France and Germany. I believe my country is best able to supply the young people I send in harm's way with the hardware they need to do their job. Nothing I make is good enough for your soldiers and nothing you make is good enough for mine. The one thing I will agree with though is why the US bothers to even conduct an open competition on this deal. It is one area where these three countries blast us with their brains, they are too smart to even pretend to want open and fair competition for the serious buys. The small stuff no problem, but the real big stuff? No way. We still have so much to learn.
 
keesje
Posts: 8745
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

There is this "implied truth" put forward again and again by certain people (not yourself) that the day Airbus announced the A330-200, Boeing never recorded another 767 order.

If one repeats a lie often enough, eventually some people start to believe it's true. But it isn't.

Creativity with numbers Stitch  

During the last 5 yrs Boeing delivered 45 767s, Airbus 334 A330s. Backlogs also speak a clear message.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The RFP criteria is designed to get a minimum set of capabilities for the lowest price possible.

Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore. I think everybody immediately saw the new goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules. NG backed off.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:39 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore. I think everybody immediately saw the new goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules. NG backed off.

And the 2007 tanker competition was solely for a KC-135R replacement till McCain and the paid EADS lobbyists on his staff got the rules changed to allow for "extra credit". We don't have speculate to "see the goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules" in the 2007 competition, the letters McCain wrote and the relationship his staff had with EADS are public record.

The current competition places things back to where they started in 2007, and hopefully makes it easy for the USAF to finish the competition without years of protest.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):


Creativity with numbers Stitch.  

During the last 5 yrs Boeing delivered 45 767s, Airbus 334 A330s. Backlogs also speak a clear message.

Right back at you, since you are including A330-300 deliveries in that total.  

And I can find years where the 767 outsold and/or out-delivered the A330.




But then that's a big part of the problem. Everyone is happy to argue general facts, but few people seem to want to argue relevant facts (as it applies to KC-X, USAF tanker operations, and the RFP). When both sides make their arguments broad enough, they're pretty easy to support, even if they end up not really applying to the discussion anymore.

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore.

It can be valued, but only to a point. Otherwise, Boeing would just bid the 777 Freighter and have won by default since Airbus Military has nothing comparable to offer.

And that's where the bruhaha has been. Airbus supporters want the US "to spend a good deal more money to get a good deal more capability" while Boeing supporters point to the 767 offering more capability than the KC-135 and question whether the extra capability the A330 MRTT offers on top of that is worth the extra cost it would require to obtain and operate.




Being blunt again, all three RFPs should have ensured a Boeing win.

They won the first one because they cheated. having it written so only they could realistically bid. Though it should be noted that Airbus at the time had not yet created an MRTT of either the A310 or the A330, so if it had been a truly open competition, could Airbus have realistically bid, much less win? Nonetheless, Boeing cheated, was caught, and were subsequently stripped of the win.

Boeing should have won the second RFP for the same reason they are believed to be the favorites to win the third one - they have the better price and good enough value. But with the second RFP, it was Airbus that cheated (with the support of certain members of the USAF and Congress) to win and was caught for it and they were stripped of the win, as well.

So now here is round three, and this time, the DoD seems to have finally developed an RFP that neither side can cheat to win. Before it was announced, the "common belief" was that it would be written to favor Airbus so Boeing caterwauled. After it was announced, the "common belief" changed that it was written to favor Boeing so Airbus is the one now caterwauling. But since neither side appears to be able to game the RFP, it's going to be considered on which proposal better meets the RFP.

And again, nothing is stopping Airbus Military from undercutting Boeing's offer, just as Boeing could low-ball the KC-767, themselves, to negate what extra credit the A330 MRTT will be able to earn under the RFP for it's extra capabilities over the KC-767. As long as either company doesn't seek redress from their respective governments to cover any losses undercutting said offer would incur, it's all legal. And if EADS feels as confident about how fantastic the MRTT is as their supporters on this board are, they should feel confident in submitting prices to other RFPs at a high enough price to generate sufficient profit from each deal to offset any loss from the USAF bid price.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:00 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
*: E.g. my claim that no 767 will ever offer the same capability per spent $ has never been rebuted convincingly. It is not possible because the civil airliner market has spoken about that. But if it is a fact, why claim that the cheapest solution should win? If every invested $ clearly returns less?

You fail to see several important points.

1. The USAF is NOT your airforce. Its not operating a small fleet of fighters near home, and a secondary mission to support "expeditionary forces". Its not using fighters with probe and drogue equipment. Its a huge airforce with lots of equipement everywhere for everything. Everything uses a boom. Again, everything uses a boom.

2. Better for commercial passenger hauling is WORSE for tankering. The better a plane is optimized for hauling passengers the worse it is for hauling dense cargo (fuel). More troubling is that more and more engines and wings are optimized for high altitude cruise, which leaves thier effiency at lower altitudes and speeds far worse than planes of old. If they can do it at all.

3. The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.

4. More costs more. The KC30 gets its higher total fuel offload by lofting many more tons of fuel, then burning a good portion of it for its own use. Its going to cost more to operate in fuel, ALOT more. Then we get to basing requirements. The KC-30 is HUUUUGE. To put a fine point on it, it requires as much tarmac, hangers, etc as a B52, which we all know is a tiny little thing. Er... wait. Or with its nearly identical wingspan and 30ft difference to a early 747, the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's. They could have bought new KC747s instead of KC-10s, but somehow they found the DC-10's smaller frame size a good thing and the offload more than enough at that RFP.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number?

Again, tell me how its "fixed" or "obvious manipulation" to order toothbrushes when you need toothbrushes. I can tell you the guys won't like brushing thier teeth with a chain saw, and the combat engineers won't like trying to cut a tree with soft bristles. This RFP is simple, do the KC-135R's job with a dash of modern avionics on the side. There isn't fluff added on. No gray area of Cost vs Capiblity. Its do job A, lowest price wins. Only way to hit the comparision between offerings is to have effectively an identical price. So if EADS can offer the KC30, meet all the manditory requirements, and bid 1% lower than Boeing... they win. Easy no?

Lets not forget that EADS again gets a (nearly) free ride in actual milcon costs with the selection of the bases best able to handle a new large aircraft, not the bases selected by study as being the ones most needing the new larger planes.

Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R. The KC135s have 1 boom. The KC30 has 1 boom. Both can be on station long enough to cause crew fatigue issues. The only place it could make the difference is if the KC135's had a low mission ready rate. Strangely unless they are in the shop for major upgrades they are avalible for use virtualy all the time. Expecting a new more complex type to achieve the KC135's avaliblity in the near term is... foolish. So if the USAF sent planes to the desert on a 1:1 basis as they aquire KC30, we would almost certainly see a drop in avalible offload. Same for the KC767 as ironing out the bugs in pilot, MX, supply, etc training takes time and these ALL affect if a plane can be usable. We see the same effect when airlines take a new type into service where they have limited people trained, and they spend a good amount of time learning the new gear. They don't throw a new type into service on the day they get it.

So in short, the USAF needs atleast 1 new frame for every 1 old frame they retire. This is why the bidders are bidding on a fixed quantity contract.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:08 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Again, tell me how its "fixed" or "obvious manipulation" to order toothbrushes when you need toothbrushes. I can tell you the guys won't like brushing thier teeth with a chain saw, and the combat engineers won't like trying to cut a tree with soft bristles. This RFP is simple, do the KC-135R's job with a dash of modern avionics on the side. There isn't fluff added on. No gray area of Cost vs Capiblity. Its do job A, lowest price wins. Only way to hit the comparision between offerings is to have effectively an identical price. So if EADS can offer the KC30, meet all the manditory requirements, and bid 1% lower than Boeing... they win. Easy no?

Indeed, but both parties must present a price that the auditors believe is realistic.

You are not allowed to underbid just to skunk the competition.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

EADS are pretty sharp players.

If they are spending this much time and money to bid, they believe that they can win.

I thought I read that they have 200 employees working on formulating the response to the RFP, which can easily run to 20,000 or 30,000 pages.

An order for 179 airframes and a direct pipeline to Uncle Sam's coffers doesn't come along all that often.

Some call this a once in a lifetime contract, and I think that's about right.

So, even if the deck is stacked heavily against them, they'll stay in the game till the end.

So, two more months of our lives wasted on tanker threads!  
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
But with the second RFP, it was Airbus that cheated

Airbus never cheated, employees of Boeing did (in the first bid). That is a major difference here Stitch. Do not forget the facts since you are usually very good at stating correct facts.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris.

For the same reason I want Airbus to win. And no one can deny that the amount of arrogance and hubris has come at least at a factor of 10 to 1 more from Boeing Aficionados then from Airbus is this debate. (OK, maybe it is 9 to 1  ).

And of course Airbus is offering the better (superior) product in this competition here.  Wink.

[Edited 2010-04-21 14:59:31]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:20 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Airbus never cheated, employees of Boeing did (in the first bid). That is a major difference here Stitch. Do not forget the facts since you are usually very good at stating correct facts.    .

The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

And I did note they had help from the USAF and Congress in that regard, just as Boeing did when they cheated in 2002.


It's why discussion of this line of topic should just be banned by the moderators. Even the people who are actively trying to be logical and use empirical processes are tripping themselves up.

Once the RFP winner has been announced, we can start discussing how unfair / fair said decision was based on the criteria released with the win, so we'll all at least be on the same page to start.  Smile

[Edited 2010-04-21 15:23:17]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:39 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Once the RFP winner has been announced, we can start discussing how unfair / fair said decision was based on the criteria released with the win, so we'll all at least be on the same page to start.

I am sure that will be heavily debated here. And we would be on the same page to start.  
 
allegro
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:37 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
"I've stands all that I can and I can't stands no more".

Toot-toot! Agreed.

I would like to remind everyone that the you cannot lower your price below your cost and sell to the US Federal government ... it is against the law. That will be key here.

Now you can hide this in many ways, but a good forensic accountant (note: GAO) will find it.

So EADS has a more expensive frame but may be able to lower its costs (vs. KC-767) through the militarization of the frame. It will interesting to see how it works out. IMHO, it is a waste of time on EADS part and will be a pyrrhic victory if they do win. Not to mention taking resources away from the A350.

And what about offsets? What is France, Spain and Germany goin got buy from the US? We already run a ~$100B trade deficit with the EU (90% of that is Germany ... love the cars!). Though this is rapidly changing ... the US trade deficit is dropping, but is still hugely in favor of the EU.

It is just foolish of us to even allow a foreign bidder when we need high-paying jobs here.

Now onto a part of this discussion, we have not talked about (can you believe that?).

Japan benefits greatly from a KC-767 win ... since most of the 767 parts are built there ... wonder if they have ever entered in to these negotiations via the back door. Maybe Japan can by some Typhoons ... they seem to like them. But that sounds a bit silly ... to allow the US to buy a US plane, Japan must buy European planes ... well, politics does make for strange bed-fellows.

I still think EADS should wait until KC-Y (where a larger frame is more desirable) ... but they REALLY want to go for Boeing's jugular.

Also, I am pretty sure that EADS, by itself, cannot install the classified communications/EW equipment since they are not an American company ... hence the need for a US Prime. But apparently, they think they can find someone to do the work if they win. I can certainly see NG, LM, RTN or L3 saying, "Ok, now that you have won, we will help you."

The passion from this side of the pond is simple ... it's my money. Literally! We pay the taxes that buy this stuff. We want the best for our military at a reasonable cost. If a US supplier can do that ... end-of-story.

One last note ... ONE OF THE LARGEST US MILITARY CONTRACTOR IN 2009 BY REVENUE ????????? BAE Systems ... we bought $12B worth of stuff from them LAST YEAR ALONE ... so there, we do play nice (sometimes ... ok, most of the time)  ! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/bu...iness/global/13arms.html?src=busln

Please, please, please give us break over here ...
Flown on: DC-3, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A310, A320, A330,
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:12 am

For those who are dying to find out how this is going to turn out, feel free to google the "Maritime Helicopter Project".
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:11 am

Quoting wingman (Reply 16):
And what our European friends from Germany, France and Spain need to explain is when and what the offset procurement will consist of. I, for one, need to see a clear timeline for an equivalent purchase of military hardware from LM, NG or Boeing of the same value as what EADS would supply to the US in this Tanker deal. If it's not going to be in troop transport or fighter jets then I have a tough time understanding why it is that the United States has to willingly cut its own veins for the continued economic advantage of Europe when we ourselves are in desperate need of restoring our own economic balance in both trade and manufacturing vis a vis Europe. It's an odious topic but it lies at the very heart of the issue. As inherently stupid as most of our politicians are they do seem just intelligent enough to understand that spraying huge wads of trade balance-busting government cash all over Toulouse and Sevilla is simply moronic.

Yes and that is the true face of America showing itself, free trade for all as long only America has the advantage. This goes back to the days of the Jones Act which required ships engaged in purely domestic trade are built in American shipyards, owned by American companies and operated by American crews.

Perhaps other countries should ban US brands from their markets until the trade balance is restored ?

What is the trade balance between Europe and the US on military equipment ?

Since when was the 767 100% built in America ?

Since when was Boeing 100% American owned ?

Since when was the A330 100% built in Europe ?

Since when was EADS 100% European owned ?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.

And that applies to just about every piece of military equipment that the US has, e.g. the C-17 is "more" of a freighter than the USAF needs, most of the time it flies around with less than 50% of its maximum payload.

The maximum capabilities are there not for day to day operations, they are there for situations we never wish to find ourselves in, the absolute worst.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):

Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R

You can, in fact the USAF replaced KC-135A etc with fewer more capable upgraded KC-135s. They built over 700 of the original airframes, now only just over 400 are in service.

And the USAF needs to service other arms of the US DoD, hose refuelling is a requirement. It is silly in a lot of ways that the USAF does not use drogue refuelling for the smaller fast jets, in most cases you get the same flow rate out of a boom as the hose on those aircraft as you are limited by the receiver, not the tanker.

The USAF has a history of replacing more aircraft with fewer aircraft with greater capabilities.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

The GAO never made an assessment on the capability of either airframe, it does not have the skills to do so. The cheating Boeing did on a previous bid resulted in people being sent to goal, nothing was found to have been done illegally in the last round.

To paraphrase what the GAO report said, they could not find enough proof to draw the same conclusions that the USAF selection process came up with (i.e. not enough supporting paperwork).

They asked the USAF to repoen discussion to get more paperwork, the rest is history.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:22 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
We don't know that A330 is 5% more expensive and 40% more capable. As above, we do know it can haul more fuel but burns more fuel to do so.

These numbers are fictional and show an example how this RFP fails to pick always the most cost efficient solution. I don't say that the numbers apply to any existing or future aircraft. They just show a potential shortcoming of the RFP to select the best bang-for-buck. Why does the RFP apply this methodology that could lead to less capability per invested $? And why do people without any questioning claim all the time that the RFP will return the cheapest package? There is a strong believe in that (to be witnessed by the countless "I don't care, it is only important that the cheapest offering that barely mets the requirements is selected"-statements).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Getting an order for 179 frames is just too much pork for anyone to restrain themselves.

That's clear. Explains probably quite well the enormous lobbying.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

I am aware of that (and I endorse that establising this fact in the forum can be attributed to you). My point was that despite this fact the A330 basically is the successor of the 767 on the market (not in the fleets). And never (or rarely) the 767 won campaigns against the A330.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Just as the USAF went to great lengths with the old RFP to make the A330 look best.

Why that? What advantage has the USAF by pushing a foreign product? Nobody could explain me that so far. EADS tankers seem so unpopular that you can't convince me that at any time a notable EADS-pushing coalition existed and had the strength to shake and actually tilt the established opinions (Boeing=tanker). If it existed a notable footprint in the press would exist. I would be glad if you can show it to me.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
What grinds my gears is the belief that it's okay for the US government (through the USAF) to engineer an Airbus win, but not for the US government to engineer a Boeing win - doubly so when I have yet to see the government actually doing so, while we have confirmation (through the GAO report) that the USAF did.


I know we have been through it, but please repeat in some sentences why the Airbus win was fabricated.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
1. The USAF is NOT your airforce.


Sure! We don't need tankers because our whole country is so small that refuelling some aircrafts requires probably several tour-de-suisses!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Its not operating a small fleet of fighters near home, and a secondary mission to support "expeditionary forces". Its not using fighters with probe and drogue equipment. Its a huge airforce with lots of equipement everywhere for everything. Everything uses a boom. Again, everything uses a boom.


179 KC-30 booms have more presence on station than 179 KC-767 booms.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
2. Better for commercial passenger hauling is WORSE for tankering. The better a plane is optimized for hauling passengers the worse it is for hauling dense cargo (fuel). More troubling is that more and more engines and wings are optimized for high altitude cruise, which leaves thier effiency at lower altitudes and speeds far worse than planes of old. If they can do it at all.


I almost mentioned this as disadvantage for any 787 or A350 tankers. Especially being a widebody does mostly not pay off for pure tankers. On the other hand if in the future the USAF starts to master the logistics of combined cargo/tanker fleets it would pay off (they already saw the benefit of it and expressed the want to do it).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Both can be on station long enough to cause crew fatigue issues.


What is the limiting factor to extend station time as long as fuel is onboard?

I really ask this question because it should not be a problem to have backup crews onboard that could serve unlimited timespans around the clock. Here the widebodies allow even better crew rest facilities. I don't know whether the 767 as is already has crew rest areas. But the A330 has. And it is quiter inside. But I do not expect that to be a killer argument.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R. The KC135s have 1 boom. The KC30 has 1 boom. Both can be on station long enough to cause crew fatigue issues. The only place it could make the difference is if the KC135's had a low mission ready rate. Strangely unless they are in the shop for major upgrades they are avalible for use virtualy all the time. Expecting a new more complex type to achieve the KC135's avaliblity in the near term is... foolish. So if the USAF sent planes to the desert on a 1:1 basis as they aquire KC30, we would almost certainly see a drop in avalible offload.


Different offload rate, longer on station time, less transfer legs because of that, more refueling per sortie, reduced number of tankers to support long pinholing camapaigns, less aircrafts required to accompany strategic bomber attacks.
You see the benefit of X% better offload capabilities directly lead to reduced cost. Already the difference between A330 and 767 in these metrics probably showed to be so significant that the first wildly unpopular NG selection happened.

I am quite sure that the additional cost of an KC-30 (if there is any at all) is not outweighted by the additional capabilities as outline above. In other words overall costs could be lower with the little more expensive but disproportionate more capable KC-30.

It required that weird RFP to nullify that logic. With the result that every russian or chinese tanker would win the competition (if it would attend and the USAF would stick strictly to the RFP).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
3. The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.


Then why sets the RFP the bar for the new tankers on KC-135 level? Another missed chance to really safe costs. E.g. you describe a situation where KC-737's could offer anything needed. Now those would really safe costs. Why use 767's for a task that could be done by 737's?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
4. More costs more. The KC30 gets its higher total fuel offload by lofting many more tons of fuel, then burning a good portion of it for its own use.


Ok, more costs more! And offers more offload rate, longer on station time, less transfer legs because of that, more refueling per sortie, reduced number of tankers to support long pinholing camapaigns, less aircrafts required to accompany strategic bomber attacks.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Its going to cost more to operate in fuel, ALOT more.


Not per refuelled gallon.

How is that complicated to grasp? All other things being equal the larger aircraft always fulfills tasks more effcient. Per payload, per number of pax, per offloaded fuel, per anything. That is the reason large aircrafts exist. They combine the ability of a multitude of smaller aircrafts at lower costs than the multitude of smaller aircrafts.

And b.t.w. in this case "All other things" are far from being equal. The 767 is at disadvantage in many aspects. See civil market. Also in the realm of efficiency. And especially if you take the ration between capability and efficiency.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Or with its nearly identical wingspan and 30ft difference to a early 747, the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's. They could have bought new KC747s instead of KC-10s, but somehow they found the DC-10's smaller frame size a good thing and the offload more than enough at that RFP.


The space issue. At least I don't deny that the A330 has a huge wingspan. If the USAF would set a hard wingspan limit THAT would exclude the A330 from participation (because of tarmac issues) there would be nothing to complain from anybody. But they didn't.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Its do job A, lowest price wins.


The tanker job can look many different ways. It would be wise to accept that today solutions could shift the optimum concept how to accomplish those tasks. What if Gyro Gearloose would invent an aircraft that can loiter a week on station, refuel 1000 aircrafts but cost only 10% more than a 767? The RFP would be rubish and a complete failure to evaluate the best.

What does the KC-135 usage profile help to judge future tankers? The aviation industry would have ceased long ago if airlines would insist that new built aircrafts still have to follow the capabilities of the 707.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
So in short, the USAF needs atleast 1 new frame for every 1 old frame they retire. This is why the bidders are bidding on a fixed quantity contract.


It makes no sense and does not guarantee the best outcome on the capability AND cost side.


Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...


EADS offered and documented what they had. To find out whether that matches the requirement fully or not is not their task. What else duties does the buyer have if not checking that requirements are met?

And I already explained that failing to prove a requirement is not the same like missing a requirement. E.g. in software development test coverage usually is not 100% (even the question what 100% test coverage is disunites the experts). That means the uncovered areas are not proved. But this only seldom means that the requirements are not met.

Therefore claiming that the A330 failed to meet requirements is not correct, also not if repeated often.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
And I did note they had help from the USAF and Congress in that regard, just as Boeing did when they cheated in 2002.


Please show me the source that EADS ever received help other than support for a fair competition and based on merits.

Quoting allegro (Reply 25):
We pay the taxes that buy this stuff. We want the best for our military at a reasonable cost. If a US supplier can do that ... end-of-story.


That's clear! Now be honest and answer this question with "yes" or "no": Do you want the best for your military at a reasonable cost if a foreign supplier can do it better? (Before answering that question clear your mind from tankers and any figurative items that may float around).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:52 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Yes and that is the true face of America showing itself, free trade for all as long only America has the advantage. This goes back to the days of the Jones Act which required ships engaged in purely domestic trade are built in American shipyards, owned by American companies and operated by American crews.

Perhaps other countries should ban US brands from their markets until the trade balance is restored ?

How exactly would they do that, this is one I would like to see explained since all those governments actually run a trade SURPLUS with the US, if they ban US products they would INCREASE their trade SURPLUS.

Take France for example, they run a trade surplus with the US but their complaint in the RFP is that the US exports more military products to Europe than Europe does to the US, no where did I see the French officials bemoan their trade surplus with the US.

If the EU for the RFP would state that the US runs a trade ITEM surplus with the EU and that items balance needs to be restored no one would bring up the entire result of free and fair trade which the US has used to its demise, they have freely allowed virtually every country in the industrial world a trade SURPLUS, as I said in other threads this balance has to be restored before the US either goes bankrupt or its consumer wise up in spite of their government and starts righting the ship themselves which will create economic chaos around the world.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
How exactly would they do that, this is one I would like to see explained since all those governments actually run a trade SURPLUS with the US, if they ban US products they would INCREASE their trade SURPLUS.

The only country which that would be true for every month would be Germany, they were the world leading exporter until China took over. With the strong Euro it is much easier for them to do, when the US$ rebounds it will be worth looking at the numbers again.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
Take France for example, they run a trade surplus with the US but their complaint in the RFP is that the US exports more military products to Europe than Europe does to the US, no where did I see the French officials bemoan their trade surplus with the US.

France does not always have a trade surplus with the US, look at the month to month figures, where EADS is based, i.e. Netherlands, I do not think has a surplus with the US normally.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:29 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Yes and that is the true face of America showing itself, free trade for all as long only America has the advantage.


Apologies to the moderators for going off topic, but.....

For those that claim that the US does not practice what it preaches when it comes to free trade, I'll repeat what I've stated in other threads, "tell that to the folks that used to work in the following industries: furniture, textiles, steel, shoes, appliance manufacturing.....need I go on?" If we were in truth as hypocritical as is being claimed, the 100s of thousands of jobs that have been lost would still be here, so let's please put this red herring to rest!

[Edited 2010-04-22 06:30:31]
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

I've seen this claim dozens of times, but no hard evidence to back it up.
But even assuming it is true, then it was was the USAF/DOD who "cheated", because they awarded the contract. Last time I checked, they didn't use illegal practices to amend the RFP.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Better for commercial passenger hauling is WORSE for tankering. The better a plane is optimized for hauling passengers the worse it is for hauling dense cargo (fuel)

And this statement is based on what? And FYI, both the 767 and the A330 are optimized for hauling passengers. But at the same time, both make good freighters.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
More troubling is that more and more engines and wings are optimized for high altitude cruise, which leaves thier effiency at lower altitudes and speeds far worse than planes of old. If they can do it at all.

Ridiculous. A more efficient engine at high altitude will also be more efficient at low altitude. And the wings of EVERY jet airliner are optimized for high altitude cruise.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's

Equally ridiculous.You just have to look at MTOW and keep in mind that early 747s are less efficient than A330s.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:55 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
I know we have been through it, but please repeat in some sentences why the Airbus win was fabricated.

Others have summed it up quite well across hundreds of posts. A search will provide you with plenty of background, or you could read the actual GAO report if you wish to "go direct to the source" without any commentary/interpretation.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
What advantage has the USAF by pushing a foreign product?

Lack of fiscal discipline.

The US Defense Department has been awash in money for the past decade so the USAF figured "Why settle for the KC-767 when we can get the A330 MRTT? Sure it costs billions more, but hey, we'll just put it on our charge card and worry about paying for it later!"

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
EADS offered and documented what they had. To find out whether that matches the requirement fully or not is not their task. What else duties does the buyer have if not checking that requirements are met?

One wonders why EADS submitted such an RFP in the first place? Unless they expected (or knew) the USAF would overlook those "unproven requirements"?   

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
I've seen this claim dozens of times, but no hard evidence to back it up.
But even assuming it is true, then it was was the USAF/DOD who "cheated", because they awarded the contract.

And I've said as much.

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Last time I checked, they didn't use illegal practices to amend the RFP.

Not every guilty person is punished for their misdeeds.

Not to mention as much as Airbus supporters like to drag up the 2002 RFP as proof Boeing is manipulating the 2009 RFP, if anything, that Boeing was cited for doing so in 2002 both would discourage them from doing so again in 2009 and also influenced the drafting of the 2009 RFP so Boeing couldn't manipulate it.

So at this point, every time the 2002 RFP is raised, it's just a red herring with no relevance to the 2009 RFP. And such posts should be deleted as off-topic and flamebait.

[Edited 2010-04-22 07:57:46]

[Edited 2010-04-22 08:08:55]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:31 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
Getting an order for 179 frames is just too much pork for anyone to restrain themselves.

I am not convinced that all planned 179 new tankers will be bought, no matter who wins the tanker compitition.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
If EADS wants to win this, then all they have to do is beat the price Boeing can offer with their PoS 767-based product. Airbus Military will lose money on every frame, but they'll have the prestige of beating Boeing out of providing the USAF with their tanker.

And maybe this will allow EADS to successfully soak other militaries on their A330 MRTT purchases to make up the losses.

I doubt the bean counters will allow a below cost price bid be accepted and contraced from either OEM.

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

There is this "implied truth" put forward again and again by certain people (not yourself) that the day Airbus announced the A330-200, Boeing never recorded another 767 order.

If one repeats a lie often enough, eventually some people start to believe it's true. But it isn't.

Creativity with numbers Stitch

During the last 5 yrs Boeing delivered 45 767s, Airbus 334 A330s. Backlogs also speak a clear message.

Then why aren't your numbers considered as "selected"? How many of the A-330s (both types) over the last 5 years were actually compensation for the A-380 delays? Yes, Boeing now has some B-767s on order for the B-787 delays, but I don't think any of those have been delivered yet. IIRC, there are 12 B-767s heavily discounted for B-787 delays, to NH I believe.

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore.

Correct. But the narrow bodied KC-135 already has excess capability as evident by the amount of fuel they currently land with at the end of the scheduled missions. If the narrow body tanker already has excess capability, why would you want a wide body tanker that has just as high a rate of landing with even more fuel aboard? Both the KC-767 and KC-30 will do that.

That and the costs are just some of the reasons I favor reengining the KC-135Es over buying a shiny new airplane.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
But with the second RFP, it was Airbus that cheated

Airbus never cheated, employees of Boeing did (in the first bid). That is a major difference here Stitch. Do not forget the facts since you are usually very good at stating correct facts.

EADS did not have to cheat, they (and NG) paid people on McCain's staff, and offered jobs to USAF people when they retired to get the KC-30 selected in 2008.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
of course Airbus is offering the better (superior) product in this competition here.

Okay, Mr. USAF Tanker expert in Europe, you have said this before, but have never answered numerous questions why the EADS offer is "better (superior)" in this, or the last compoition. Please explain why the KC-30 offer is "better (superior)" to the KC-767NG offer. There are not a lot of details that Boeing has released on the KC-767NG, and all EADS has said, so far, is their RAAF KC-30 already meets 90% of the 2010 RFP, without going into much detail.

Without knowing all the facts of each offer, how can you say one is better than the other for the USAF mission?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 24):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Once the RFP winner has been announced, we can start discussing how unfair / fair said decision was based on the criteria released with the win, so we'll all at least be on the same page to start.

I am sure that will be heavily debated here. And we would be on the same page to start.

Correct, and we will hear from all of the USAF Tanker Experts from all over the world.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
What is the trade balance between Europe and the US on military equipment ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
Take France for example, they run a trade surplus with the US but their complaint in the RFP is that the US exports more military products to Europe than Europe does to the US, no where did I see the French officials bemoan their trade surplus with the US.


France does not always have a trade surplus with the US, look at the month to month figures, where EADS is based, i.e. Netherlands, I do not think has a surplus with the US normally.

In the US, we look at the entire trade balance with the EU. The military trade is only about 15%, what about the other 85% which includes all that French wine and snails? Have you ever seen all the German BMWs, Mercades, British Mini Coopers or Swedish Volvos and Saabs? The US is the world's largest importer of Airbus aircraft from France and Germany, as well as BAE's largest customer. Germany and the Netherlands make most of the manufacturing machinery used in the US. We have also bought thousands of Saab and ATR aircraft.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.

And that applies to just about every piece of military equipment that the US has, e.g. the C-17 is "more" of a freighter than the USAF needs, most of the time it flies around with less than 50% of its maximum payload.

The maximum capabilities are there not for day to day operations, they are there for situations we never wish to find ourselves in, the absolute worst.

Correct. But there is a limit as to how much extra capability will be needed for "surge operations" or can be supported by economic realities. The USAF could buy hundreds of tankers with a 500,000 lb off-load capability at XXX nm ranges (KC-380-800F or KC-747-8F), but can we afford them?

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):

Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R

You can, in fact the USAF replaced KC-135A etc with fewer more capable upgraded KC-135s. They built over 700 of the original airframes, now only just over 400 are in service.

Zeke, the original plane, in 1982 when the KC-135R program began was to reengine all KC-135A/Qs (about 525 at that time of the original 732 KC-135As due to W/Os from accidents and many converted to other "non-tanker" missions) to the KC-135R/T, then reengine the 157 KC-135Es (which also began reengining in 1982) to the KC-135R beginning around 2002. The USAF, and the world changed in the early 1990s with the end of the Cold War and the reorganization of the USAF. By 1997, the USAF had parked its entire fleet of 350 F/EF/FB-111s, many early F-16A/Bs and F-15A/Bs, hundreds of C-130s and C-141Bs (although the C-141 retirement would not complete until about 2003), transferred the EC-135C "Looking Glass" mission to the USN E-6B, and parked/destroyed 200 B-52Gs. This produced a mush smaller USAF of 2005 compared to the size it was in 1990. That was the main reason for parking 75 KC-135As and the 152 (surviving) KC-135Es were claimed to have corrision problems.

Even today, the USAF says it needs between 540 and 620 equivelent KC-135Rs but the current fleet size is 415 KC-135R/Ts and 59 KC-10As, giving an equivelent of 505 KC-135Rs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
And the USAF needs to service other arms of the US DoD, hose refuelling is a requirement. It is silly in a lot of ways that the USAF does not use drogue refuelling for the smaller fast jets, in most cases you get the same flow rate out of a boom as the hose on those aircraft as you are limited by the receiver, not the tanker.

Zeke, on a fighter drag, small fighters, etc., like the F-16 or A-10 can Boom refuel to full tankers much faster than the F/A-18 or Tornado. I have refueled on both types of missions and the on-load rate is not what the book says.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
We don't know that A330 is 5% more expensive and 40% more capable. As above, we do know it can haul more fuel but burns more fuel to do so.

These numbers are fictional and show an example how this RFP fails to pick always the most cost efficient solution. I don't say that the numbers apply to any existing or future aircraft. They just show a potential shortcoming of the RFP to select the best bang-for-buck. Why does the RFP apply this methodology that could lead to less capability per invested $? And why do people without any questioning claim all the time that the RFP will return the cheapest package? There is a strong believe in that (to be witnessed by the countless "I don't care, it is only important that the cheapest offering that barely mets the requirements is selected"-statements).

No, Revelation is nearly right on with his numbers. The 2008 GAO report said the (then) KC-30 costs $10M more than the (then) KC-767AT, or about 6%. We know the KC-767AT and KC-767NG will carry 202,000 lbs of fuel and the RAAF KC-30 carries 245,000 lbs of fuel, or about 20% more fuel. We also know, from the GAO report, that Boeing's 2008 offer was some 24% more fuel efficent than EADS/NGs 2008 offer. Does that 24% fuel savings translate into the offers for 2010, none of us really knbows, yet. But, Boeing's reditions of the KC-767NG has blended winglets, which on commerical B-767-300ERs is reducing fuel comsumption by some 5%. The KC-767NG will, most likely, have about the same MTOW of the B-767-300ER (about 412,000 lbs)

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
What advantage has the USAF by pushing a foreign product? Nobody could explain me that so far.

The USAF guys who make the decision on which KC-X offer to select are very near the end of their USAF careers and will be looking for jobs after they retire from the USAF. It is unetical and illegal for them to have "small and side, off the record" discussions about that, but the reality is it happens all the time. Human nature is what it is. This was investigated after the 2008 feasco, but charges were never proven.

I would not be surprised if these things are going on right now.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
179 KC-30 booms have more presence on station than 179 KC-767 booms.

No, they would be the same. Each tanker will have a defined mission duration and scheduled off-load. Most tankers will need to land at or very close to the scheduled time so the airplane can receive proper maintenance. Of course these can and do change depending on the mission requirments or additions to the mission, such as late in the mission a need to support a "target of oppertunity" or a SAR mission.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R. The KC135s have 1 boom. The KC30 has 1 boom. Both can be on station long enough to cause crew fatigue issues. The only place it could make the difference is if the KC135's had a low mission ready rate. Strangely unless they are in the shop for major upgrades they are avalible for use virtualy all the time. Expecting a new more complex type to achieve the KC135's avaliblity in the near term is... foolish. So if the USAF sent planes to the desert on a 1:1 basis as they aquire KC30, we would almost certainly see a drop in avalible offload.


Different offload rate, longer on station time, less transfer legs because of that, more refueling per sortie, reduced number of tankers to support long pinholing camapaigns, less aircrafts required to accompany strategic bomber attacks.
You see the benefit of X% better offload capabilities directly lead to reduced cost.

The transfer rates are dictated by the reciver aircraft, not the tanker. The tanker has a maximum off-load rate. The time on station will be about the same due to the higher fuel comsumption by the KC-30, the transfer legs and number of refuelings per sortie will be the same for both the KC-767 and KC-30. I won't get into the strategic bomber mission, but I assure you the number of tankers assigned to each bomber will be the same. The larger fuel load of the KC-30 is only a benefit to large receivers when the tanker is on a short (about 4 hours or less) mission.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
3. The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.


Then why sets the RFP the bar for the new tankers on KC-135 level? Another missed chance to really safe costs. E.g. you describe a situation where KC-737's could offer anything needed. Now those would really safe costs. Why use 767's for a task that could be done by 737's?

Neither a tanker B-737 or a tanker A-32X can fill the current mission of the heavier and longer range of the KC-135. That is why neither OEM is offering these airplanes converted into tankers.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:55 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

I've seen this claim dozens of times, but no hard evidence to back it up.

Even the USAF said, in 2008, the KC-30 could not perform the published breakaway emergency procedure, and the GAO confirmed that. This and other requirements the KC-30 could not do has been discussed dozens of times,

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
But even assuming it is true, then it was was the USAF/DOD who "cheated", because they awarded the contract. Last time I checked, they didn't use illegal practices to amend the RFP.

No but they did use political influence through McCain and Shelby. But that (then) was ok and Boeing's political influence is bad? Give me a break.............

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Better for commercial passenger hauling is WORSE for tankering. The better a plane is optimized for hauling passengers the worse it is for hauling dense cargo (fuel)

And this statement is based on what? And FYI, both the 767 and the A330 are optimized for hauling passengers. But at the same time, both make good freighters.

The B-767F is a good freighter, the A-330F just got its STC a week ago and has yet to prove anything.

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's

Equally ridiculous.You just have to look at MTOW and keep in mind that early 747s are less efficient than A330s.

What about a KC-777F? Or does the EU motto of "bigger is better" only apply to the A-330MRTT and A-400?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
So at this point, every time the 2002 RFP is raised, it's just a red herring with no relevance to the 2009 RFP.

Correct.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:03 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
Maritime Helicopter Project

"And that applies to just about every piece of military equipment that the US has, e.g. the C-17 is "more" of a freighter than the USAF needs, most of the time it flies around with less than 50% of its maximum payload.

The maximum capabilities are there not for day to day operations, they are there for situations we never wish to find ourselves in, the absolute worst."

Off topic some... but your talking about needed capabilities of particualar A/C (tanker/transport). Why would you dismiss the capabilities of one and not the other?

The Dutch needed it, and now the Germans are sending them to a-stan too (can't be carried on a400m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PzH_2000

see photo.
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:05 pm

harder than woodpecker lips...
 
AutothrustBlue
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:37 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
The US Defense Department has been awash in money for the past decade so the USAF figured "Why settle for the KC-767 when we can get the A330 MRTT? Sure it costs billions more, but hey, we'll just put it on our charge card and worry about paying for it later!"

Has the DoD even tried to baragain with A&B for better prices? The AF is going to receive billions worth in planes; surely both companies would like to slash prices to be competitive and as a "thank you" for doing business.

Since picking the right aircraft is the problem, why don't Boeing and EADS give some planes to the AF for a "test drive." E.g. when I go to buy a car, I don't want to listen to the salesman rattle off stats about the car, how it can seat 6 and still have cargo room etc, for half and hour only to arrive at the conclusion that their car kills the competition. I'd like to see the car and drive it so that I don't have regrets about the decision I made. Expensive and time consuming, yes, but it may give the AF a sense of direction; which plane to pick, and for what reasons.   
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:52 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
The only country which that would be true for every month would be Germany
Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
France does not always have a trade surplus with the US, look at the month to month figures

Well I was looking at the trade balnace be year not per month which is more important and relevant in this case, I'll let KC135TopBoom response nelow stand.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
In the US, we look at the entire trade balance with the EU. The military trade is only about 15%, what about the other 85% which includes all that French wine and snails? Have you ever seen all the German BMWs, Mercades, British Mini Coopers or Swedish Volvos and Saabs? The US is the world's largest importer of Airbus aircraft from France and Germany, as well as BAE's largest customer. Germany and the Netherlands make most of the manufacturing machinery used in the US. We have also bought thousands of Saab and ATR aircraft.
Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 31):
Apologies to the moderators for going off topic, but.....

For those that claim that the US does not practice what it preaches when it comes to free trade, I'll repeat what I've stated in other threads, "tell that to the folks that used to work in the following industries: furniture, textiles, steel, shoes, appliance manufacturing.....need I go on?" If we were in truth as hypocritical as is being claimed, the 100s of thousands of jobs that have been lost would still be here, so let's please put this red herring to rest!

To add to the off topic comment, some in congress did want the WTO ruling against Airbus included, so it may be relevant but we will let the mods decide. These a/c are not raw materials being imported to the US for processing, they will actually be flown in, but it could be regarded as a technicality, so.........
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:42 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
They just show a potential shortcoming of the RFP to select the best bang-for-buck. Why does the RFP apply this methodology that could lead to less capability per invested $?
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Not per refuelled gallon.

How is that complicated to grasp? All other things being equal the larger aircraft always fulfills tasks more effcient. Per payload, per number of pax, per offloaded fuel, per anything. That is the reason large aircrafts exist. They combine the ability of a multitude of smaller aircrafts at lower costs than the multitude of smaller aircrafts.

Because all you are comparing is the max amount of gas it can lift. There are a lot of other metrics that matter, like acquisition cost, milcon cost, fuel burn, etc that work in the 767s favor.

There is a reason small airplanes exist - sometimes you don't need the capacity of the large airplane, then you are spending a lot more in acquisition, landing fees, fuel burn, etc for a capacity you do not need.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:52 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Ridiculous. A more efficient engine at high altitude will also be more efficient at low altitude. And the wings of EVERY jet airliner are optimized for high altitude cruise.

If this were the case, Hydrodynamics and areodynamics would be the same thing. However its not. The density of the fluid you are traveling through matters. The speed you are traveling matters. The optimum wingshape for 30K ft and M .87 is different than the optimum shape for 10K ft and near stall speed flaps up. The bitch of it is that Tankers are expected to do both well. A modern airline is only supposed to worry about the highaltitude highspeed cruise. More to the point, a NARROWBODY makes the best tanker given that the fuel requires no seating room. The minimial cross-section of the fuselage will give you lower drag and a smaller wake to deal with.

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
And this statement is based on what? And FYI, both the 767 and the A330 are optimized for hauling passengers. But at the same time, both make good freighters.

The 767 is a much smaller plane than the A330 in physical size, yet very close to the same in payload. The 707/KC135 is smaller yet and again comparable payload. The A330 is optimized for hauling passengers across the atlantic. Fuel is not people. It does not need 8Y seats to economicly be viable. It needs wing and potenialy lower cargo hold fuel tanks. It does not need a large wingspan for low wing loadings.

To put it bluntly if you were designing a clean sheet tanker, it would look rather like a 737 with bigger wings, engines, and landing gear to accomidate a KC135R MTOW. Ok, throw a new nose on there too for better areodynamics, but in essense the best tankers are high MTOW narrowbodies.

That said, for nations who need MULTIROLE aircraft, the KC30 works better, since you are buying it for more than just tanker duty. As a pure tanker like the USAF needs, the 767 is far better than the KC30, yet still not close to what could be achieved by a cleansheet design.

Quoting A342 (Reply 32):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's

Equally ridiculous.You just have to look at MTOW and keep in mind that early 747s are less efficient than A330s.

See, here is where you go off the rails completely. A larger heavier plane that burns more fuel is only ok when its a KC30? A 747-200 would loft some 2 times as much fuel and the fuel burn difference is high, but the mission profiles in the RFP are interestingly short in both distance and duration. So a KC747 off a old 747 frame would cost alot more to operate, but absolutely CRUSH the KC30 in the metrics used in the last RFP. Who cares if it burns an extra 10 or even 20 tons of fuel when it takes off with 127 tons more fuel to begin with. Fuel offload and cargo capacity is all that matters right? Quick check of numbers shows the 747-200 having 500,000lbs difference between empty and MTOW while the KC30 is listed at 245,000lbs of fuel. Heck take two crew so, you can swap off every few hours to prevent fatigue issues and just leave the KC747 for almost twice as long.

Oh wait, The USAF knows this, looked at all the numbers... and NEVER ordered KC747 despite unmatched tankering and cargo abilities for over 40 years now. Even with all of Boeings "political power" that people claim is the only reason from not selecting the larger plane in the past. How does that work out when Boeing has ALLWAYS had the largest plane avalible for these missions? (btw I'll rate the A380 as avalible for this when they secure a contract for a military or cargo version)
 
wingman
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:04 pm

Zeke, others have made the point for me. You have to understand that in opening this tanker competition to EADS the US has done something which angers many Americans that understand the fundamentals of our trade position with Europe, and with Asia for that matter. Americans like myself understand that despite whatever rhetoric is out here it is an indisputable fact that we run the most open and liberal trade market on Earth (niche special economies such as Singapore, HK, and Andorra notwithstanding). The evidence of this is that we purchase more imported goods than any other trading partner or bloc purchases from us. That alone makes your comment null and void. It is precisely this fact of decades of trade imbalances with Europe that should rightfully cause Americans to question "if we are to scratch mightily on the backs of the French, German and Spanish purveyors of EADS tankers, let's first examine how they have scratched our back..lately or as far back as 20-30 years." And the answer to that question is "jeez, we plow tens of billions of dollars in import revenues into their coffers every year and these friends of ours don't even invite us to tender on a SINGLE major military procurement campaign in that time." Not for ships, not for planes, not for tanks, not for tankers, helos, etc etc ad nauseum. Now I'm sure someone will come up with some example of how the US supplies miltary grade toilet paper to German Special Forces but my point is about the larger scope and picture. It's about true cornerstone 50 year programs valued at tens of billions of dollars. And in this category my point is valid and unassailable.

So I'm not sure what logic you use to formulate your opinion. If you're saying that Americans hypocrites for even opening the competition then I salute you for your accuracy. We are that, and this is the reason why I stated that we still have much to learn from our special friends abroad. They at least have the common sense to not even fake open and fair competition, and yet they still have the cojones to demand that we do.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9841
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:33 pm

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 31):
For those that claim that the US does not practice what it preaches when it comes to free trade, I'll repeat what I've stated in other threads, "tell that to the folks that used to work in the following industries: furniture, textiles, steel, shoes, appliance manufacturing.....need I go on?" If we were in truth as hypocritical as is being claimed, the 100s of thousands of jobs that have been lost would still be here, so let's please put this red herring to rest!

They don’t, have a look at how many industries they go around protecting. If US workers would work for US$1 or less a day like people do in Asia, those manufacturing bases would still be in the US.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Have you ever seen all the German BMWs, Mercades, British Mini Coopers or Swedish Volvos and Saabs? The US is the world's largest importer of Airbus aircraft from France and Germany, as well as BAE's largest customer. Germany and the Netherlands make most of the manufacturing machinery used in the US. We have also bought thousands of Saab and ATR aircraft.

BMW - X5, X6 and Z models are made in the US
Mercedes - M-Class, R-Class, GL-Class are made in the US
Volvo - are they still owned by Ford USA ?
Airbus - gets over 45% of its content from the US. China is the largest export customer by far, the US is behind the pack, with countries like the UK, Germany, India, China, Australia, and Singapore, of the 122 aircraft delivered this year, only 4 of them have gone to the US, over 20 have gone to China.

"bought thousands of Saab and ATR aircraft" - don’t think so, thousands have not been made, let alone exported to the US.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):

Zeke, on a fighter drag, small fighters, etc., like the F-16 or A-10 can Boom refuel to full tankers much faster than the F/A-18 or Tornado. I have refueled on both types of missions and the on-load rate is not what the book says.

On the KC-135 the F-16 and F/A-18 both at max are 2000 lb/min, the A-10 is 2400 lb/min. Feeding 2xF/A-18s at 2000 lb/min at a time is still faster than one A-10 or one F-16.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:54 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 43):
They don’t, have a look at how many industries they go around protecting. If US workers would work for US$1 or less a day like people do in Asia, those manufacturing bases would still be in the US

Again asking the moderators for some leeway since I realize we are going off topic but......

Zeke,

You are not refuting what I am stating, if the US was protectionist, the jobs that were lost in those industries would not have been lost, plain and simple. And please tell me what industries you are referring to when you say "have a look at all the industries they go around protecting"???

And you can't possibly be serious about having US workers work for US$1 or less a day, are you? That's a very simplistic statement that doesn't take into consideration things like standard of living, cost of living, purchasing power, quality of life, etc, etc. Isn't the ultimate goal to bring up other people's standard of living, not lower ours?
 
allegro
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:37 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:18 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Why that? What advantage has the USAF by pushing a foreign product? Nobody could explain me that so far.

Simple. They get more plane, for more money and that was part of the GAO upholding of the protest by Boeing.

Great summary here: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
That's clear! Now be honest and answer this question with "yes" or "no": Do you want the best for your military at a reasonable cost if a foreign supplier can do it better? (

Yes, abosultely .. without question. As it applies here, I do not see that the KC-30 will "protect" their lives any better than the KC-767. But "best" is so subjective ... hence the new "tighter" RFP.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Different offload rate,

I thought the off-load rate was the same ... 1200 gpm through the boom ... are the hose/drogue rates different?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
All other things being equal the larger aircraft always fulfills tasks more effcient.

Then why no KC-747 or KC-380? Clearly, there are diminishing returns on size for this task.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 28):
Therefore claiming that the A330 failed to meet requirements is not correct

Tell that to the GAO ... see point three on their summary. Yes, the KC-30 was offered as is and the USAF should determine whether that is sufficient. The USAF said, yes it is. The GAO said, no it is not.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
The only country which that would be true for every month would be Germany, they were the world leading exporter until China took over. With the strong Euro it is much easier for them to do, when the US$ rebounds it will be worth looking at the numbers again.

Agreed. The US is becoming a larger exporter than before ... our trade deficit dropped to ~3% of GDP in 2009 vs. an all-time high of 6%. Check this out: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...nge/2010/02/americas_trade_deficit
Please note it is an inverted graph.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
where EADS is based, i.e. Netherlands

EEEK ... does that mean EADS is a "Stichting" ... a little research shows that it has a "Foundation" ... a stichting is a non-profit organization .. maybe part of EADS is setup as a non-profit .. weird ... did not know that. Confirmation here: http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-...-of-directors/members/gallois.html ... need to investigate this more. For example, IKEA is a stichting (non-profit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_INGKA_Foundation) ... yeah right ... it is an intersting loophole in EU tax law.


Frankly, the solution is simple and should have been done a long tme ago .. have a fly-off ... ala YF-22 v. YF-23, etc. Pay the manuafacturers to build you a copy and then test them. Not uncommon when you are talking about many billions of dollars.
Flown on: DC-3, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A310, A320, A330,
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:22 pm

Quoting AutothrustBlue (Reply 38):
Has the DoD even tried to baragain with A&B for better prices?

That's effectively what this RFP does, by defining what the USAF must have in order to replace the KC-135 fleet and what they would like to have beyond those "must haves", but stating clearly that those "nice to haves" are not so important that price is inconsequential.

And that's the core of the argument: the A330 MRTT includes more "nice to haves" than the KC-767, however that means the cost of the A330 MRTT is more than the KC-767.

The Airbus supporters want the USAF to select the A330 MRTT to get all those "nice to haves" and just spend the extra money that will require.

The Boeing supporters wants the USAF to select the KC-767, accepting that they won't get as many "nice to haves", but they will spend less money.

[Edited 2010-04-22 12:23:45]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

In fairness, that isn't an example of EADS "cheating"....

Quoting allegro (Reply 25):
One last note ... ONE OF THE LARGEST US MILITARY CONTRACTOR IN 2009 BY REVENUE ????????? BAE Systems ... we bought $12B worth of stuff from them LAST YEAR ALONE ... so there, we do play nice (sometimes ... ok, most of the time)

Although to be fair, with the exception of the M777, which has no competitor anywhere that I'm aware of, all of that was spent in the USA in former US-owned defence contractors which have been purchased by BAE Systems

BAE have pumped orders of magnitude more money INTO the US economy than they have taken out   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
How many of the A-330s (both types) over the last 5 years were actually compensation for the A-380 delays?

Precious few. That's a red herring.

Quoting wingman (Reply 42):
The evidence of this is that we purchase more imported goods than any other trading partner or bloc purchases from us.

Gotta stand for something, you'd think.  

Rgds
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:07 pm

Quoting allegro (Reply 45):
EEEK ... does that mean EADS is a "Stichting" ... a little research shows that it has a "Foundation" ... a stichting is a non-profit organization .. maybe part of EADS is setup as a non-profit .. weird ... did not know that

Off topic: A "stichting" in the Netherlands (foundation) does not need to be a non profit organisation. There are for example housing societies (stichtingen = multiple for stichting in Dutch) in Amsterdam or Rotterdam with literally hundreds of millions in Euro's at the bank (as strategic reserve). Now those hundreds of millions must have come from somewhere, and that somewhere is a sound business profit.

EADS usually is also a profit generating company. So that should be no problem.  
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid

Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Not to mention as much as Airbus supporters like to drag up the 2002 RFP as proof Boeing is manipulating the 2009 RFP, if anything, that Boeing was cited for doing so in 2002 both would discourage them from doing so again in 2009 and also influenced the drafting of the 2009 RFP so Boeing couldn't manipulate it.

So at this point, every time the 2002 RFP is raised, it's just a red herring with no relevance to the 2009 RFP. And such posts should be deleted as off-topic and flamebait.

I've never claimed that Boeing has manipulated the current RFP nor have I implied it. But the notion that EADS cheated is wrong. And those who claim this haven't produced any evidence.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Even the USAF said, in 2008, the KC-30 could not perform the published breakaway emergency procedure, and the GAO confirmed that.

I don't know what that procedure looks like. But I'd like to have official proof that the USAF and GAO claimed so, and I'd honestly like to know why the KC-30 cannot perform such a procedure.
I mean, is it that special? After all, it seems to work for Australia and the UAE.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
No but they did use political influence through McCain and Shelby. But that (then) was ok and Boeing's political influence is bad? Give me a break.............

It's called lobbysism, everybody does it. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said it is ok, and in fact I think that lobbyists not only in the USA, but also here in Europe have WAY too much influence (but here were're straying off topic).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The B-767F is a good freighter, the A-330F just got its STC a week ago and has yet to prove anything.

First, it is not a STC, but an extension to the original type certificate. Second, its payload is one tonne higher than advertised. And the performance of the A330 airframe is very much known. This claim is as relevant as your claim some months ago that the EADS boom "doesn't work on the A330 yet".

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
The bitch of it is that Tankers are expected to do both well. A modern airline is only supposed to worry about the highaltitude highspeed cruise. More to the point, a NARROWBODY makes the best tanker given that the fuel requires no seating room. The minimial cross-section of the fuselage will give you lower drag and a smaller wake to deal with.

Irrelevant, since both tankers are widebodies.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
The 767 is a much smaller plane than the A330 in physical size, yet very close to the same in payload.

Maximum structural payload
762ER: 35.6 tonnes
A332: 53.3 tonnes (+49.7%)

Total useful load:
762ER: 96.8 tonnes
A332: 121 tonnes (+25%)

That's what you call "very close"?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
The 767 is a much smaller plane than the A330 in physical size, yet very close to the same in payload. The 707/KC135 is smaller yet and again comparable payload. The A330 is optimized for hauling passengers across the atlantic. Fuel is not people. It does not need 8Y seats to economicly be viable. It needs wing and potenialy lower cargo hold fuel tanks. It does not need a large wingspan for low wing loadings.

To put it bluntly if you were designing a clean sheet tanker, it would look rather like a 737 with bigger wings, engines, and landing gear to accomidate a KC135R MTOW. Ok, throw a new nose on there too for better areodynamics, but in essense the best tankers are high MTOW narrowbodies.

That said, for nations who need MULTIROLE aircraft, the KC30 works better, since you are buying it for more than just tanker duty. As a pure tanker like the USAF needs, the 767 is far better than the KC30, yet still not close to what could be achieved by a cleansheet design.

And despite the lower drag resulting from its narrower fuselage cross-section, the 767 is still less efficient as a tanker than the A330 because fuel is just another form of payload. Better wing and engine design take care of that.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
See, here is where you go off the rails completely. A larger heavier plane that burns more fuel is only ok when its a KC30?

Where on earth did I say that? Again, don't put words in my mouth. Boeing was free to offer a KC-777 which could have won the competition. But they didn't. Instead, they complained about the RFP.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
Quick check of numbers shows the 747-200 having 500,000lbs difference between empty and MTOW while the KC30 is listed at 245,000lbs of fuel. Heck take two crew so, you can swap off every few hours to prevent fatigue issues and just leave the KC747 for almost twice as long.

Do you want to imply that the total fuel burn for an A330 and a 742 is the same??? I hope not.
Exceptions confirm the rule.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests