User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:58 pm

Well, tomorrow is 7/9/10, the day the KC-X bids are due to Wright-Pattersen AFB, OH (at 1400L).

Both Boeing and EADS are expected to meet the deadline and submit their offers.

Does anyone think either EADS or Boeing (or both) will publicly release more detailed information of their respective offers to the USAF (less classified information) after the bid deadline?

I think the PR campagins will ratchet up significantly from each company, claiming how each bid is better for the warfighter and tax payer than the other. But that may be about it, with few additional details reveiled. I would like, however to see more details, but I don't think they will release much more than they currently have.

Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5220
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:42 pm

What I want to see the most is what sort of animal this An-122KC is. But given the proponents request to extend the deadline, it seems the most we could expect are powerpoint presentations and computer generated images.

I suspect the An-112KC would look something like this.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stéphane Mutzenberg
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roel Van Der Velpen - MST-Aviation



[Edited 2010-07-08 10:53:06]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:37 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 1):
What I want to see the most is what sort of animal this An-122KC is

My guess is an An-124-100 with GE-90-115B engines.

It seems EADS is submitting there bid today, and Boeing tomorrow.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...bmits-tanker-bid-boeing-to-follow/
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:59 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?


we will get some more details slowly on non critical aspects ... just enough to make assumptions and continue the A/B debate for another couple months.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:43 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Since there is limited details, as of today, about the proposed KC-767NG and KC-30, we could all benefit, and debate the offers. What does anyone think?


we will get some more details slowly on non critical aspects ... just enough to make assumptions and continue the A/B debate for another couple months.

That's what I am hoping for.......         
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:12 pm

Boeing has now officially submitted their bid for the KC-X program. Like EADS, their bid is about 8,000 pages. Unlike EADS, Boeing submitted their bid without holding a dog and pony PR show.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...g-offers-kc-767-to-usaf/#more-3243

Boeing has released a press release;

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100709

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1303

So now the USAF has two official bids on the KC-X contract.

Will US Aerospace also submit a bid today?
 
aerobalance
Posts: 4309
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:35 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:36 pm

First shot fired...
"Boeing says lower prices than last time"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boeing...-lower-rb-2237284099.html?x=0&.v=1
"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:33 pm

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 6):
First shot fired...
"Boeing says lower prices than last time"

Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price. If Boeing's bid price per unit is within about $5M of EADS, in either direction, they win, due to fuel and MilCon cost comparisons.

There is no doubt both OEMs have submitted offers that fully comply with all 372 mandatory requirements.

BTW, and off topic, today is my 40th annaversery of joining the USAF
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:25 pm

EADS gave us a little more in the radar chart they put in this presentation:
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...-45-press-lunch-slides-7-08-10.pdf

Boeing's press release only had one line that struck me as new/different (although I don't know what it means):
"... a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100709
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:46 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price.

This to me is the entire reason why it was important to have a viable competitive situation with the bid. Without competition you simply do not get the best price and service. All I have ever wanted out of this process was a bid that did not view the government as a cow to be milked.

Based on your numbers (guesses I know) this will save ~$4.3 billion. Of course some of the savings is nullified by increased costs to keep the current fleet in the air but still that is a significant amount.


Tugg


(Edited to correct my numbers and other stuff.)

[Edited 2010-07-09 16:04:23]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5220
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:24 am

Well, from the other thread, U.S. Aerospace's bid is in.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...am-2010-07-09?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Quote:
"LOS ANGELES, Jul 09, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- U.S. Aerospace, Inc. (OTCBB: USAE), a U.S. aerospace and defense contractor, today announced that it has submitted a bid to the U.S. Air Force to supply 179 aerial refueling tankers at $150 Million per plane, with a total bid package of $29.55 Billion including research and development costs."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
So Boeing would need to come in around 20% lower than their 2008 offer, or around $140M-$150M per unit just to be competive on the buy price. If Boeing's bid price per unit is within about $5M of EADS, in either direction, they win, due to fuel and MilCon cost comparisons.

Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:49 am

Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments? EADS' refusal to honor it's cost plus A400 contract seems like it would be a huge factor in the DODs evaluation. A companies history of extorting more money than it had agreed upon can't be a positive thing.
Anon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:44 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Unlike EADS, Boeing submitted their bid without holding a dog and pony PR show.

Apart from the Boeing sponsored event in Everett with a range of politicians and Boeing employees ?

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?

I think they would need to show they can actually meet the delivery timetable, without a working boom, I do not see this as being possible.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments?

No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:08 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Would that mean then that if Boeing bid even $5M/airframe over U.S.A.'s bid of $150M per plane above, that they would've already beaten the latter's offer, and only had to better EADS' bid to win the contract?

I think they would need to show they can actually meet the delivery timetable, without a working boom, I do not see this as being possible.

It looks like the delivery schedule could be a challange to all 3 bidders, not just Boeing.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments? EADS' refusal to honor it's cost plus A400 contract seems like it would be a huge factor in the DODs evaluation. A companies history of extorting more money than it had agreed upon can't be a positive thing.

I don't know if the USAF can look at the A-400 problems, or not. If they did, they would also have to look at the ITAF, JSDAF, and RAAF tanker delivery problems, Wedgetail, P-8, C-17, F/A-EA-18, Typhoon, etc. too.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:11 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 11):
Isn't there any "risk" factor in the bid assessments?

No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?

According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Also, I wouldn't put to mush confidence in EADS's new power point program. Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13856
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:57 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Well, their 2008 bid was around $174M average costs per tanker. EADS was expected to be able to beat that, as they could reduce the 2008 NG bid of $184M by at least 10% (around $166.6M), plus an additional amount due to the recent strenght of the USD compared to the Euro (about 8%-10% or more).

I'd imagine that EADS would have to buy some currency hedges since much of their content is priced in EUR yet they will be paid in USD. I wonder what that does to the cost equation.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9050
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:05 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
No, Boeing got this removed from the RFP, they claimed to the GAO that the USAF risk assessment of their proposal was unfair last time. The question is, was the USAF really that unfair ?

Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap. The USAF doesn't need to pay more in purchase price, cost per mile to fly, MilCon etc. They need some funds available in case they want more planes that actually fight instead of a Texaco in the Air. No eating their cake and eating it too,

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
I wonder what that does to the cost equation.

The USAF doesn't want to worry about that. Nor do politicians that will be providing the funding. That means that Airbus is going to have to take care of that in a manner that provides some level of confidence. The Euro hitting $1.50+ is possible so Airbus will probably have included that in their proposal.

As for providing information the fans of both suppliers in the COngress should be ensuring that at least the purchase price is know very quickly. No need for that to be a secret.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:25 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Did they really, interesting interpretation. The GAO never made ANY assessment of EITHER bid, it looked at the process, it has NO ability to do a technical analysis of any airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.

Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
I'd imagine that EADS would have to buy some currency hedges since much of their content is priced in EUR yet they will be paid in USD.

Most are in US$ these days, during Power8 when the sold off a lot of their plants, part of the deal was to get the products in US$ terms regardless of where it was being built/assembled.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap.

The KC-30 last round had a lower purchase prices, and we expect that to be 10-15% lower now since NG is not taking their mark-up.

Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?



no company produces a chart like that which doesn't put their product in better light than anything else... salesmen lie by omission.

I just look at it and smile... it's just for show... we'll probably see several more like it ho hum not worth an argument
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:39 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
According to the GAO, the answer is yes.

Did they really, interesting interpretation. The GAO never made ANY assessment of EITHER bid, it looked at the process, it has NO ability to do a technical analysis of any airframe.

I didn't say that, and you know it. The GAO did evaluate how the USAF treated the 2008 bids unequilly, and sided with Boeing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Their evaluation, nor Boeing's count at all, only the USAF's evaluation counts.

Industry analyst have not stated that chart is inaccurate, are you now saying what EADS has published in inaccurate ? If yes what ?
Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
no company produces a chart like that which doesn't put their product in better light than anything else... salesmen lie by omission.

kenban is correct, the PP was made by EADS to support the EADS bid over the Boeing bid. Industry analysts have said nothing about a chart released by EADS on Friday, and probibly won't even look at it until their work week begins tomorrow, this is a weekend. Those analysts that support EADS will say it is accurate, those that support Boeing will challange it, as well as the new 'spider chart'.

All three pages of the EADS PP presentation is built around the 'more, more, more concept', yet the compitition is built around the lowest overall price after complience with all 372 requirements. Complying with the requirements requires 100% of each one, not 120%.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
Cute chart, but we're in a recession (and things might get worse) so all I care about is cheap.

The KC-30 last round had a lower purchase prices, and we expect that to be 10-15% lower now since NG is not taking their mark-up.

Not according to the GAO. They said the NG price was some $10M more per unit than the Boeing offer, and the USAF applied 'adjustments' to Boeing and not NG.

I do agree that with NG now out of the picture that EADS-NA's pffered price can be some 10%-20% lower than the $184M per unit NG offered in 2008 (according to their own press conference when the withdrew back in April). That puts my estimate of the price for this year from EADS at $147.2M-$165.6M per unit. The USAF will add estimated fuel burn costs and MilCon costs to that number to arrive at a total estiminated cost per unit. Boeing would have already known this, and could (my guess) offer a price anywhere from about $140M-$150M per unit, before the USAF adjustements for fuel burn and MilCon.

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Not according to the US Treasury. They are projecting a US 2010 economy growth of between 1%-2%. The growth of the US economy in 2009 was a dismal 1.4%, which was eaten up by the 2009 inflation rate of 1.5% when food and energy costs were applied.
 
trex8
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:08 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Not according to the US Treasury. They are projecting a US 2010 economy growth of between 1%-2%. The growth of the US economy in 2009 was a dismal 1.4%, which was eaten up by the 2009 inflation rate of 1.5% when food and energy costs were applied

inflation is irrelevant when the "official" figures for determining if a recession is occurring, it makes a heck of a difference to your or my spending power though!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9050
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Not sure how you define a recession, the BEA quarterly growth figures show the US economy has been positive since around the start of 2009, last figures suggested the economy is growing at around 3%.

Look towards unemployment, the deficit, the need to continue to protect those workers who lost jobs from the economy.

Recessions for individuals is different than the economists definition. From the taxpayers' point of view we are still in a recession.

And there have been discussions about the risk of the country having the economy fall again. Even talk of the risk of a real depression.

Against that reality for the people in this country the USAF need to keep the program a a minimum cost. Purchase price, MilCon, Hourly operating costs, etc. They need to do that not only because the public will not tolerate a flock of AF Generals with grandiose ideas, but also because money spent on the tankers will not be available for other planes, including fighters and bombers.

I can remember many years ago VW ran an ad campaign with just one word: Cheap. It didn't mean that the car was poorly made. It referenced purchase and operating costs. That's what we need fora tanker, or the risk increases significantly that the acquisition schedule gets stretched out very far into the future.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 20):
inflation is irrelevant when the "official" figures for determining if a recession is occurring, it makes a heck of a difference to your or my spending power though!

Correct, but that is a debate for a different forum. Perhaps the non-aviation board as a political debate?

But, back on topic, I am hoping both Boeing and EADS put out more info on their offers in the next few weeks.

Quoting vcjc (Reply 8):
EADS gave us a little more in the radar chart they put in this presentation:
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.co...0.pdf
Quoting vcjc (Reply 8):
Boeing's press release only had one line that struck me as new/different (although I don't know what it means):
"... a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/me...00709

Boeing says (on that web page);
"Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, the NewGen Tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of meeting or exceeding the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. It includes state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability. The NewGen Tanker also features an advanced KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system.

More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger and heavier Airbus A330 Tanker being offered by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs alone over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel. The Boeing tanker also will cost 15 to 20 percent less to maintain than the A330, which means it will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance costs.

Nationwide, the NewGen Tanker will support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states. That is tens of thousands more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe."


EADS (on its web page);

It compares the KC-767 to their A-330MRTT, as well as the Japanese and Italian KC-767s, but not the Australian KC-30, which they say their proposal is based on. They conveniently mix the systems of the RAF and RAAF tankers, which (combined) is not installed on any tanker they have built. They place every one of their proposals in green, and Boeing's proposals in yellow. In reality all proposals need to be in yellow, as none of the USAF requirements have been met yet by either OEM.

I veiw the EADS proposal as "more, more more" and the same as you will get from any used car salesman.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:57 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 10):
Well, from the other thread, U.S. Aerospace's bid is in.....

This is the AN-70 airframe with GENx engines. The company statements tend to indicate that the bid is non-complaint on a number of non-technical issues e.g. the ability to currently handle classified information.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I didn't say that, and you know it. The GAO did evaluate how the USAF treated the 2008 bids unequilly, and sided with Boeing.

The GAO recommendation to the USAF was to reopen discussions on 8 points with Boeing and NG, they never "sided" with any one party they are an independent body. They upheld 8 out of 100+ of Boeing claims, but never overturned the whole USAF process, they recommended that the 8 selected aspects of the selection process needed further discussion between the USAF and the vendors and get the USAF to either validate/invalidate their previous selection.

As we know the current bids are in the region of 8000 pages long, finding 8 points would not be that hard. The GAO decision was blown way out of proportion.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Industry analysts have said nothing about a chart released by EADS on Friday, and probibly won't even look at it until their work week begins tomorrow, this is a weekend. Those analysts that support EADS will say it is accurate, those that support Boeing will challange it, as well as the new 'spider chart'.

The areas that have been noted as being non-compliant on the Italian and Japanese tankers are areas even where Boeing has changed their submission. I have yet to see an industry analyst challenge this.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
All three pages of the EADS PP presentation is built around the 'more, more, more concept', yet the compitition is built around the lowest overall price after complience with all 372 requirements. Complying with the requirements requires 100% of each one, not 120%.

I suggest you listen to the Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale in this podcast, he describes how much more the KC-767 is over previous generations of tankers, the multi-role aircraft http://iagblog.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-09T11_53_21-07_00

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the GAO. They said the NG price was some $10M more per unit than the Boeing offer, and the USAF applied 'adjustments' to Boeing and not NG.

I suggest you then quote the exact words the GAO used, the GAO did not make that statement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the US Treasury.

"REAL GROSS domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010, according to the “advance” estimates of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) (chart 1 and table 1).1 In the fourth quarter of 2009, real GDP increased 5.6 percent."

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/05%20May/0510_gdpecon.pdf

The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, it is where the US Treasury gets its numbers from http://www.bea.gov/about/beameasures.htm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):

Look towards unemployment, the deficit, the need to continue to protect those workers who lost jobs from the economy.

The majority of the US deficient has nothing to do with balance of trade, it is because of the amount of foreign money that is being poured into the US for investments. An increasing US deficit actually reduces the unemployment rate, as more money is being invested into the economy,

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):

Against that reality for the people in this country the USAF need to keep the program a a minimum cost. Purchase price, MilCon, Hourly operating costs, etc. They need to do that not only because the public will not tolerate a flock of AF Generals with grandiose ideas, but also because money spent on the tankers will not be available for other planes, including fighters and bombers.

Well cancel the F-22 and F-35 then and just buy more F-16s and F-15s.............

Historically the USAF has always bought fewer more capably aircraft to replace a larger fleet of less capable aircraft, this is happening across the board, tankers, transports, fighters and trainers.

The USAF has historically not taken into account "MilCon, Hourly operating costs" costs. In this RFP they are not taking into account the "Hourly operating costs" or actual "MilCon" costs. Likewise they are not taking into account risk, or life cycle costs.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:46 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The GAO decision was blown way out of proportion.

Not in the US it isn't.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Not according to the US Treasury.

"REAL GROSS domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010, according to the “advance” estimates of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) (chart 1 and table 1).1 In the fourth quarter of 2009, real GDP increased 5.6 percent."

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2010/05%20May/0510_gdpecon.pdf

The BEA is the Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, it is where the US Treasury gets its numbers from http://www.bea.gov/about/beameasures.htm

The statements of the BEA have been proven to be politicaly motivated (by Obama), the CBO, Treasury, and others strongly disagree with those numbers. A 5.6% increase (growth) in GDP (in any one quarter) is not possible when unemployment is at or near 10%.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
An increasing US deficit actually reduces the unemployment rate, as more money is being invested into the economy,

Oh really? The 2009 deficiet was a record $1.4 TRILLION, and this year we have already exceeded that, with 3 months to go in FY-2010. So, according to you, we should be over a 100% employment rate in the US. We are not as the current unemployment rate is 9.8% and another 10% who gave up looking for work.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
Well cancel the F-22 and F-35 then and just buy more F-16s and F-15s.............

Historically the USAF has always bought fewer more capably aircraft to replace a larger fleet of less capable aircraft, this is happening across the board, tankers, transports, fighters and trainers.

That is only partially correct. The USAF also looks at how many of each type aircraft are needed to support future (possible) conflicts. That is the numbers they really look at. The F-22 program is already canceled, anf the F-35 program involves to many political forces and customer countries, to be on the chop block yet. Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

MCRS-16 highlights the need for airlift, sealift, and tanker numbers in 3 "case studies", two of the three show we do not have enough tanker support with the current 474 USAF tankers plus 79 USMC KC-130s.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Sit...e/Mobility/MCRS-16_execsummary.pdf
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:34 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Not in the US it isn't.

It has been, compare the comments by people like Robert Gates and yourself, chalk and cheese.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The statements of the BEA have been proven to be politicaly motivated (by Obama), the CBO, Treasury, and others strongly disagree with those numbers.

Never seen any such "proof", the BEA numbers are used by Governments and the markets as the source for data on the US economy.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
So, according to you, we should be over a 100% employment rate in the US. We are not as the current unemployment rate is 9.8% and another 10% who gave up looking for work.

No, my statement was clear, as foreign investment into the USA increases, unemployment will decrease.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

That would be new to everyone, how many F-35s have been "shot down" in training by "F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s". How many "F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s" have the datalink, stealth, high speed cruise etc capabilities of the F-35 ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
MCRS-16 highlights the need for airlift, sealift, and tanker numbers in 3 "case studies", two of the three show we do not have enough tanker support with the current 474 USAF tankers plus 79 USMC KC-130s.

That report is politely saying that the KC-135 spends too much time in depot maintenance and do not have the multirole AAR capability.

"Force development planning assumptions are in effect"

"I. The current tanker inventory consists of 474 USAF aircraft (415 KC-135s/59 KC-10s) and 79 USMC KC-130s. This inventory does not satisfy the peak demands of two of the three cases assessed. The demand ranged from a low of 383 KC-10s/KC-135R-equivalents and 66 KC-130s to a high of 567 KC-10s/KC-135R-equivalents and 79 KC-130s.However, a modernized fleet would require fewer aircraft to meet the same demand (lower depot/greater capability)."
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:14 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Not in the US it isn't.

It has been, compare the comments by people like Robert Gates and yourself, chalk and cheese.

That is why SecDef Bob Gates canceled the 2008 KC-X contract.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
So, according to you, we should be over a 100% employment rate in the US. We are not as the current unemployment rate is 9.8% and another 10% who gave up looking for work.

No, my statement was clear, as foreign investment into the USA increases, unemployment will decrease.

There is a difference between foreign investments and government deficets.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

That would be new to everyone, how many F-35s have been "shot down" in training by "F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s". How many "F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s" have the datalink, stealth, high speed cruise etc capabilities of the F-35 ?

The F-35 has yet to fly in any training warfighting games. There are only 7 flyable examples of the F-35, all in flight testing, 3 F-35As, 2 F-35Bs, and 2 F-35Cs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
MCRS-16 highlights the need for airlift, sealift, and tanker numbers in 3 "case studies", two of the three show we do not have enough tanker support with the current 474 USAF tankers plus 79 USMC KC-130s.

That report is politely saying that the KC-135 spends too much time in depot maintenance and do not have the multirole AAR capability.

"Force development planning assumptions are in effect"

"I. The current tanker inventory consists of 474 USAF aircraft (415 KC-135s/59 KC-10s) and 79 USMC KC-130s. This inventory does not satisfy the peak demands of two of the three cases assessed. The demand ranged from a low of 383 KC-10s/KC-135R-equivalents and 66 KC-130s to a high of 567 KC-10s/KC-135R-equivalents and 79 KC-130s.However, a modernized fleet would require fewer aircraft to meet the same demand (lower depot/greater capability)."

That is a political statement released by a AF General a few months ago. She said that some 19% of the KC-135 fleet is in depot each year. That is true, the depot schedule for all large USAF aircraft is once every 5 years, so 20% of any fleet in during any year. It will be the same for any new airplane, they will need depot maintenance every 4-5 years, too.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5220
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:28 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):

This is the AN-70 airframe with GENx engines.

Thanks - that looks like more of a serious threat to the A400M.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:54 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 27):
Quoting zeke (Reply 23):

This is the AN-70 airframe with GENx engines.

Thanks - that looks like more of a serious threat to the A400M.

Actually, I don't see it as a serious competitor to either the A-330MRTT or KC-767. I don't know if the An-112-KC is a serious threat to the A-400, either.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:30 am

Quoting vcjc (Reply 8):
Boeing's press release only had one line that struck me as new/different (although I don't know what it means):
"... a cockpit-design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."

Referring to the Airbus FBW system which limits the pilots from extending the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
The USAF doesn't need to pay more in purchase price, cost per mile to fly, MilCon etc. They need some funds available in case they want more planes that actually fight instead of a Texaco in the Air.

This is the biggest disinformation campaign since Baghdad Bob - the modern military today and in particular the USAF, emphasizes the need for multi-capability. Gone are the days when the USAF could get by on an A/A only F-15, or the Navy with an A/A only F-14, and so why buy a modern aerial refueling tanker along the lines of the doctrine that is as old as the current tankers, themselves? Of course the ability to haul cargo is a plus, as it can cut down on the need for more C-17's, etc. This is Boeing propaganda as far as I'm concerned.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:51 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

That is why SecDef Bob Gates canceled the 2008 KC-X contract.

Not at all, the words Robert Gates used are very differnt to yours.

"It has now become clear that the solicitation and award process cannot be accomplished by January," he said. "Thus, I believe that rather than hand the next administration an incomplete and possibly contested process, we should cleanly defer this procurement to the next team."

"It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we cannot complete a competition that will be viewed as fair and competitive in this highly-charged environment," the secretary said. "I believe the resulting cooling-off period will allow the next administration to view objectively the military requirements and craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X as it sees fit."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123114543

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

There is a difference between foreign investments and government deficets.

Not at all, it is the difference between a nation’s receipts (exports and returns on domestic holdings of foreign investment) and its payments (imports and returns on foreign holdings of domestic investment) it consists of 4 parts, exports - imports, and savings - investments. It is the savings - investments which I was talking about (net international investment position), the US is one of the countries in the world that invests more than it saves, to get the money for that investment that it cannot find from its own savings, it needs to import the money from foreign sources.

The magnitude of the net international investment position is also tracked and reported by the BEA http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/inte...ional/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

The F-35 has yet to fly in any training warfighting games. There are only 7 flyable examples of the F-35, all in flight testing, 3 F-35As, 2 F-35Bs, and 2 F-35Cs.

So it begs the question, how can your statement be true ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
That is a political statement released by a AF General a few months ago. She said that some 19% of the KC-135 fleet is in depot each year. That is true, the depot schedule for all large USAF aircraft is once every 5 years, so 20% of any fleet in during any year. It will be the same for any new airplane, they will need depot maintenance every 4-5 years, too.

MCRS-16 which I quoted is not a "political statement released by a AF General", it is signed off by two USAF Colonels.


As for the depot levels

Quote:
In the Air Force, every time a KC-135 mission is flown, it requires a crew chief and two assistants to inspect the plane for repairs. When something needs repaired, a specialist is called in. Currently, the top KC-135 systems incurring the most maintenance man-hours in the field are the fuel tank systems, auxiliary power units, flight controls and engine instruments.

Another item to consider is every year, approximately 72 KC-135s go through Air Force Materiel Command's depot maintenance with a number of age-related issues needing to be addressed. KC-135 systems and maintenance managers said this is causing the days in depot to grow. Planners also note that the older the KC-135s get, the more resources in time, manpower and money it will takes to fix them.

AMC projections show that in the next 15 to 30 years, there will be an anticipated increase in planned depot maintenance for KC-135s. This will include rewiring, reskinning, corrosion control and other structural maintenance as well as overhauling flight controls and upgrading aging analog systems in the aircraft. That extra maintenance could increase annual costs anywhere from $2 billion to $6 billion.


from http://www.arsaginc.com/Portals/0/documents/newsletter/09-Oct.pdf
The KC-30 would not need the same maintenance tempo as the KC-135, the A330 airframe now has the same certified heavy maintenance time intervals as the 787, i.e. some events once every 12-16 years.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 29):
Referring to the Airbus FBW system which limits the pilots from extending the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope.

The FBW on the KC-30 is not the same as the A330 airliner, they are different.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:37 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
MCRS-16 which I quoted is not a "political statement released by a AF General", it is signed off by two USAF Colonels.

A General out ranks a Colonel in the USAF. So, they will not ignor the wishes of their 'boss'.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
from http://www.arsaginc.com/Portals/0/documents/newsletter/09-Oct.pdf
The KC-30 would not need the same maintenance tempo as the KC-135, the A330 airframe now has the same certified heavy maintenance time intervals as the 787, i.e. some events once every 12-16 years.

That is not going to happen in the USAF, or airline business. No one is going to let some parts of any airplane not get looked at for more than a decade. The A-330 is made mostly from metals, which are subject to corrosion. Corrosion can begin anywhere on a metal aircraft.

I would not believe anything retired General Licht says, he was "Mr. more, more more" in 2008, and now has a cushy job on the board at EADS-NA. So he is noithing more than an EADS used car salesman now.

BTW, having 72 out of 415 KC-135s in depot every year works out to one visit by an individual KC-135 every 5.76 years. Since the KC-135 goes to depot every 5 years, someone is lying about the numbers and is not very good at math.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:46 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
The FBW on the KC-30 is not the same as the A330 airliner, they are different.

has the process been written and tested? how do we know this? ... aside from prebid propaganda
 
Ken777
Posts: 9050
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:42 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
They upheld 8 out of 100+ of Boeing claims, but never overturned the whole USAF process, they recommended that the 8 selected aspects of the selection process needed further discussion between the USAF and the vendors and get the USAF to either validate/invalidate their previous selection.

Any one of the 8 would have been sufficient for the USAF to terminate that proposal program. Even if no one went to prison for those games there were clearly too many games being played and they got caught.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
s we know the current bids are in the region of 8000 pages long, finding 8 points would not be that hard. The GAO decision was blown way out of proportion.

If there are games in this round then let's go back to the practice of sending some people to prison. And limit funding to re-engining some of the KC-135s.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
Well cancel the F-22 and F-35 then and just buy more F-16s and F-15s.............

If the two new fighters provide significant combat improvements then spend the money. All 4 planes will, however, be able to refuel from a KC-135.

Spending excess money for some glory on a tanker WILL result in less money for actual fighters. That's the problem with spending unnecessary month on a flying gas station.

Since I'm just a dumb old sailor I keep thinking that the focus for the Navy is actual combat ships. Support/supply ships are secondary in the middle of a battle. Same for the USAF. They just don't want to believe it when tankers are discussed.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The majority of the US deficient has nothing to do with balance of trade, it is because of the amount of foreign money that is being poured into the US for investments. An increasing US deficit actually reduces the unemployment rate, as more money is being invested into the economy,

I'm talking about the national debt, taxes (revenues falling) and demands for other programs dramatically increasing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The USAF has historically not taken into account "MilCon, Hourly operating costs" costs. In this RFP they are not taking into account the "Hourly operating costs" or actual "MilCon" costs. Likewise they are not taking into account risk, or life cycle costs.

Maybe the military stars were able to strut their stuff during the days when glorious projects were easily funded. We're past those days and we need to take into account trivial costs like MilCon or a lot of politicians are not going to be willing to fund them.

I can remember when training was significantly reduced to "save money". Don't think that hourly operating costs are going to be critical in pushing for more training hours.

Personally I'm starting to think that we'd be better off re-engining some KC-135s and waiting for the 787/350s to "mature" before getting new tankers. Maybe the country will be in a better position to buy planes by then.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:08 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 29):
Referring to the Airbus FBW system which limits the pilots from extending the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope.

However, on the Airbus system, if you take the aircraft past it's normal operating flight envelope, you will stall the aircraft, and possibility crash it.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:35 am

Can the new booms be retrofitted to the KC135s? if we were to spend the time and money upgrading engines, cockpits, and zero timing life limited components, why not upgrade the booms as well?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:56 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
A General out ranks a Colonel in the USAF. So, they will not ignor the wishes of their 'boss'.

Where is the quote from the "General" ? None was attached with your original link or subsequent posts. The report you linked was published by two Colonels, not a General.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
No one is going to let some parts of any airplane not get looked at for more than a decade.

It happens all the time in the military and airlines today.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
The A-330 is made mostly from metals, which are subject to corrosion.

The A330 was constructed with corrosion inhibitor and using alloys that are less susceptible to corrosion than say the KC-135. The KC-135 when built by Boeing did not have corrosion inhibitor between the skins and stringers, and was made from an early generation of alloys which are known to corrode today.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
So he is noithing more than an EADS used car salesman now.

Please support such outlandish statements with facts or retract them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):

BTW, having 72 out of 415 KC-135s in depot every year works out to one visit by an individual KC-135 every 5.76 years. Since the KC-135 goes to depot every 5 years, someone is lying about the numbers and is not very good at math.

The original article was clear when in stated "approximately 72".

Quoting kanban (Reply 32):

has the process been written and tested? how do we know this? ... aside from prebid propaganda

The new flight control laws have been certified by EASA

"The flight control laws of the aircraft were also modified and adapted to the needs of performing refueling operations. "

http://www.a330mrtt.com/Press/PressR...ation-from-European-Authority.aspx

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Any one of the 8 would have been sufficient for the USAF to terminate that proposal program.

The USAF nor the GAO terminated the last KC-X RFP, I have quoted why Gates said he did so in reply 30.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
And limit funding to re-engining some of the KC-135s.

And where do you get out of production engines from ? Where do you get out of production engine struts from ? where do you get the myriad of other modification that are needed to convert a KC-135E into a KC-135R ?

Also keep in mind that not all KC-135s are the same, a part built for one aircraft may not fit another, they were built pre-cad days. They have this problem all the time when they pull parts off aircraft in the graveyard and try and fit them, the parts don’t fit.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
If the two new fighters provide significant combat improvements then spend the money.

Elsewhere on the thread others have claimed they are less capable than the F-15 and F-16.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):

I'm talking about the national debt, taxes (revenues falling) and demands for other programs dramatically increasing.

So was I, you do not understand that problem.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Don't think that hourly operating costs are going to be critical in pushing for more training hours.

More and more of the flight crew training will be on simulators not in the aircraft unlike the KC-135. The KC-X RFP includes the purchase of simulators for crew training.



Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Can the new booms be retrofitted to the KC135s?

The KC-10 boom has flown on a KC-135 before.

[Edited 2010-07-14 11:33:39 by srbmod]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:06 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Can the new booms be retrofitted to the KC135s? if we were to spend the time and money upgrading engines, cockpits, and zero timing life limited components, why not upgrade the booms as well?
Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
A General out ranks a Colonel in the USAF. So, they will not ignor the wishes of their 'boss'.

Where is the quote from the "General" ? None was attached with your original link or subsequent posts. The report you linked was published by two Colonels, not a General.

It was USAF BGen. Michelle Johnson speaking to the House Armed Services Air and Land Sub-committee on 28 April 2010.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4603066&c=AIR&s=TOP

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
No one is going to let some parts of any airplane not get looked at for more than a decade.

It happens all the time in the military and airlines today.

Proof? Which airplane types? Which systems/subsystems? Which airlines and military service?

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
The A-330 is made mostly from metals, which are subject to corrosion.

The A330 was constructed with corrosion inhibitor and using alloys that are less susceptible to corrosion than say the KC-135. The KC-135 when built by Boeing did not have corrosion inhibitor between the skins and stringers, and was made from an early generation of alloys which are known to corrode today.

Boeing and/or depots have totally applies corrosion inhibitors used by today's airplanes for years now. It is the same green primer used by Boeing and EADS.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
So he is noithing more than an EADS used car salesman now.

Please support such outlandish statements with facts or retract them.

General Licht was pushing the A-330MRTT up until his retirement last February. Then he took a job with EADS-NA. When he thought of retiring in 2009, he was lobbying NG for a post retirement job.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):

BTW, having 72 out of 415 KC-135s in depot every year works out to one visit by an individual KC-135 every 5.76 years. Since the KC-135 goes to depot every 5 years, someone is lying about the numbers and is not very good at math.

The original article was clear when in stated "approximately 72".

Correct. But if you look at the 19% Gen Johnson was talking about, it works out to about 79 tankers per year in depot. The normal 20% of the fleet in depot works out to 83 aircraft per year. The 20% is the standard, so apparently the USAF is saying the KC-135 is even more reliable than that, as 72 aircraft per year in depot is only about 17.75% of the fleet of 415 KC-135s.

So, is the USAF really saying they don't need the KC-X at all?

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
The new flight control laws have been certified by EASA

"The flight control laws of the aircraft were also modified and adapted to the needs of performing refueling operations. "

http://www.a330mrtt.com/Press/PressR....aspx

Why is it you can believe every PR from EADS, but question Boeing's PRs?

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Any one of the 8 would have been sufficient for the USAF to terminate that proposal program.

The USAF nor the GAO terminated the last KC-X RFP, I have quoted why Gates said he did so in reply 30.

SecDef Gates also removed the USAF from the process until they wrote and released the DRFP last September. Only then did he send the KC-X back to the USAF for management from his own office.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
And limit funding to re-engining some of the KC-135s.

And where do you get out of production engines from ? Where do you get out of production engine struts from ? where do you get the myriad of other modification that are needed to convert a KC-135E into a KC-135R ?

The E-8C JT-8D-219 reengine has been out of production for years, to, as has the strut package for the B-7Q7. Now that program has reopened. It would not be difficult to put the E-8C reengine package on the KC-135E, or the KC-135R package, either. Production lines are reopened all the time. The C-5 had been out of production for some 12 years when it was reopened in 1985 for the C-5B program.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Also keep in mind that not all KC-135s are the same, a part built for one aircraft may not fit another, they were built pre-cad days. They have this problem all the time when they pull parts off aircraft in the graveyard and try and fit them, the parts don’t fit.

WRONG!!!!!!!!! The KC-135A, like all military aircraft was built in block series ans well as models. The basic airframe componets are identical for all KC-135s. Simply because any airplane was built pre-CAD does not mean each airplane in the type was manufactured as a unique airplane. The A-300-B2/-B4 was a "pre-CAD design, as was the A-310-200/-300. They are the same airframe, with updates, even the A-330 shares some parts designs of the A-300.

Show me any case where a part was pulled off a stored KC-135A/E for use on an active KC-135R/T and it did not fit. Yes, the engines, struts, landing gear and some other parts are different from a KC-135A, but all of the common parts are the same. Recently (actually it was in 2009) an outboard wing section and wing tip was removed from a retired KC-135A for installation on a KC-135R that had the ground collision with a Tu-154. You know what? the wing section fit, with no problems!!!!!

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
If the two new fighters provide significant combat improvements then spend the money.

Elsewhere on the thread others have claimed they are less capable than the F-15 and F-16.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The F-22 program is already canceled, anf the F-35 program involves to many political forces and customer countries, to be on the chop block yet. Also, the F-35 is actualy less capable than current F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

No, I only said that of the F-35. The F-22 has superior capabilities to the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. But it is now out of production.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):

I'm talking about the national debt, taxes (revenues falling) and demands for other programs dramatically increasing.

So was I, you do not understand that problem.

Almost all Americans understand the debt problems we currently have. Since BHO came to office on 20 January 2009, the national debt has increased by more than $2.5 TRILLION, to nopw be over $13 TRILLION, and climbing. It is you, sir, who does not understand the problems of national or international debt. BTW, the problem is even worse in the EU than in the US. The US debt is some 56% of GDP, for some European countries it is as high as 123% of GDP.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Don't think that hourly operating costs are going to be critical in pushing for more training hours.

More and more of the flight crew training will be on simulators not in the aircraft unlike the KC-135. The KC-X RFP includes the purchase of simulators for crew training.

More than 60% of initial KC-135 training is done in simulators and most KC-135 bases have at least one KC-135 pilot full motion sim.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
Can the new booms be retrofitted to the KC135s?

The KC-10 boom has flown on a KC-135 before.

Correct, and it could be fitted to the KC-135s now.

[Edited 2010-07-14 11:33:17 by srbmod]
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The F-22 has superior capabilities to the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. But it is now out of production.

Not quite yet. The F-22 production is still on going but there will not be any new orders.

Quote:
passage of HR 3326, effectively marks the end of the F-22 program. F-22 production will continue through remaining funded orders, and cease in 2011.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-procurement-events-updated-02908/

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:54 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Boeing and/or depots have totally applies corrosion inhibitors used by today's airplanes for years now. It is the same green primer used by Boeing and EADS.


Actually the green primer (skydrol resistant finish or SRF) must be applied before assembly wing wet areas get a zinc chromate primer.... and all areas where bare metal is exposed during assembly must be touched up. all drilled holes require an Alodine application and some require wet SRF before fastener installation. sometimes there is a total topcoat however there are weight considerations... In wet areas It's common to add a white enamel coat over the SRF. The actual corrosion inhibitor Boeing uses is Dinol which is the last topcoat... This stuff is paraffin based and has amazing wicking capability. it will wick into any gap between assembled components. I have seen two glass slides set vertically on top of a drop and watched it wick up 3 inches.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:28 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 38):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The F-22 has superior capabilities to the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. But it is now out of production.

Not quite yet. The F-22 production is still on going but there will not be any new orders.

Thanks for the update, and correction, Tugg

Quoting kanban (Reply 39):
kanban

You could be right, but the KC-135 does not use skydrol hydraulic fluid, it uses 5606 hydraulic fluid, which works much better in very cold climates. 5606 is more flammable, though.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:44 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
You could be right, but the KC-135 does not use skydrol hydraulic fluid, it uses 5606 hydraulic fluid, which works much better in very cold climates. 5606 is more flammable, though.



even though it's called SRF, I believe it's resistant to 5606 as well... I know we used on the 747-100's that were not Skyrol...however that was so long ago I don't remember what they used or which airlines... it did cause problems at resale and occasionally when a repair station used incompatible "o" rings....unfortunately the last KC-135 was delivered just before I hired on so I never saw the interior structure however all I think all the spare parts we sold had zinc chromate by Mil Spec it's more yellow than SRF
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:50 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 41):
I know we used on the 747-100's that were not Skyrol...however that was so long ago I don't remember what they used or which airlines... it did cause problems at resale and occasionally when a repair station used incompatible "o" rings....unfortunately the last KC-135 was delivered just before I hired on so I never saw the interior structure however all I think all the spare parts we sold had zinc chromate by Mil Spec it's more yellow than SRF

If the hydraulic fluid is red, it is 5606. Skydrol is clear, or mostly clear. 5606 is a Mil Spec hydraulic fluid and was used in most military aircraft built in the '50s through 80'.

The yellow primer on the KC-135s has all been replaced since it was applied in the '50s through the '70s.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9855
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:00 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):

It was USAF BGen. Michelle Johnson speaking to the House Armed Services Air and Land Sub-committee on 28 April 2010.

That link does not support your previous statement "That is a political statement released by a AF General a few months ago.", that was testimony.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Proof? Which airplane types? Which systems/subsystems? Which airlines and military service?

Parts that have been bonded, be it on control surfaces or like the centre wing tanks on Boeing aircraft. Wiring looms are another area.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):

Boeing and/or depots have totally applies corrosion inhibitors used by today's airplanes for years now. It is the same green primer used by Boeing and EADS.

The USAF has only stated stripping down KC-135s fully to find areas of future concern, no KC-135 I am aware of has ever been totally stripped back and corrosion inhibitor applied, hence the reason why large scale skin replacement is scheduled for the KC-135 later this decade.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):

General Licht was pushing the A-330MRTT up until his retirement last February. Then he took a job with EADS-NA. When he thought of retiring in 2009, he was lobbying NG for a post retirement job.

That does not support your outlandish statement "So he is noithing more than an EADS used car salesman now."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):

Correct. But if you look at the 19% Gen Johnson was talking about, it works out to about 79 tankers per year in depot. The normal 20% of the fleet in depot works out to 83 aircraft per year. The 20% is the standard, so apparently the USAF is saying the KC-135 is even more reliable than that, as 72 aircraft per year in depot is only about 17.75% of the fleet of 415 KC-135s.

You will get 5-10 KC-135s engine up in deport level unscheduled maintenance on top of the scheduled work.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Why is it you can believe every PR from EADS, but question Boeing's PRs?

It is a statement of fact, EASA has issued the STC.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The E-8C JT-8D-219 reengine has been out of production for years, to, as has the strut package for the B-7Q7. Now that program has reopened. It would not be difficult to put the E-8C reengine package on the KC-135E, or the KC-135R package, either. Production lines are reopened all the time. The C-5 had been out of production for some 12 years when it was reopened in 1985 for the C-5B program.

I am not aware of any jet engine that has gone back into production after it has ceased. Aircraft engines usually have some very unique metallurgy which maybe produced for a specific engine type.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):

WRONG!!!!!!!!! The KC-135A, like all military aircraft was built in block series ans well as models. The basic airframe componets are identical for all KC-135s. Simply because any airplane was built pre-CAD does not mean each airplane in the type was manufactured as a unique airplane.

The USAF disagrees with you

Quote:
But parts shortages and obsolescence issues are persistent, difficult to solve problems. “It continues to get worse,” said Col. Douglas Cato, commander of Tinker’s 76th Aircraft Maintenance Group, on solving the “severe” spare parts puzzle. Parts from the “Boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., provide some relief, but the replacement pieces don’t always fit.

While the various airframes have common components such as gear boxes or flaps, the big issue is the assembly techniques used in the 1950s. “They did not have laser precision assembly techniques; they were assembled by master mechanics,” Gann said.

The net result is that without significant rework, the chance of a structural part from a retired E model fitting one of the R models that remain in service is rare. The additional work required to make components fit in turn raises costs.

As a result, Cato said, the maintenance community is pushing for the Defense Logistics Agency to increase “ship sets” of spare parts on hand before aircraft are disassembled, to better mitigate risk and cut down on maintenance flow times.

from http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...2010/April%202010/0410tankers.aspx

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
The A-300-B2/-B4 was a "pre-CAD design, as was the A-310-200/-300. They are the same airframe, with updates, even the A-330 shares some parts designs of the A-300.

The A300 was made using precision manufacturing techniques, it was made on various sites and assembled in TLS, this is different to the way the KC-135 was manufactured.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Show me any case where a part was pulled off a stored KC-135A/E for use on an active KC-135R/T and it did not fit.

See the link http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...2010/April%202010/0410tankers.aspx

"The net result is that without significant rework, the chance of a structural part from a retired E model fitting one of the R models that remain in service is rare. The additional work required to make components fit in turn raises costs."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
More than 60% of initial KC-135 training is done in simulators and most KC-135 bases have at least one KC-135 pilot full motion sim.

The KC-135 simulators are not zero flight time simulators like current generation simulators.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:12 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
If the hydraulic fluid is red, it is 5606


yup that was it and after a good nights sleep it seems to me TWA was the airline that wanted it versus Skydrol... and to convert all hydraulic systems not only had to be purged but all devices (actuators, landing gear etc) had to be disassembled cleaned and reassembled with Skydrol compatible orings and seals...

what is the Mil-Spec on the primer in use today... I know there was a push to get rid of all chromate type primers...
 
Ken777
Posts: 9050
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:26 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
The USAF nor the GAO terminated the last KC-X RFP, I have quoted why Gates said he did so in reply 30.

Gates was politically polite in order to avoid being shamed in public for the games played by the USAF.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
So was I, you do not understand that problem.

Oh, I understand the problems. We are in 2 wars with personnel strained. We've established a $3+ Trillion future cost for these wars. We're in the Middle of a Great Recession, with abnormal funding to avoid a true depression. We've had to bail out banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.

And people think we have sufficient funds available for the USAF to be glorious in buying new tankers? Flying gas stations where some people want us to spend money on the largest, most expensive option?

I also understand that there are also going to be other capital purchasing programs at the DoD that need funding. An intelligent balance would be to minimize costs for the tanker fleet until other problems are sorted out. If the B-52 can keep flying so can the KC-135. If there is going to be a replacement then it needs to be the cheapest.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
General Licht was pushing the A-330MRTT up until his retirement last February. Then he took a job with EADS-NA. When he thought of retiring in 2009, he was lobbying NG for a post retirement job.

That has sufficient smell to it. No need to retract anything as far as I'm concerned.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
SecDef Gates also removed the USAF from the process until they wrote and released the DRFP last September. Only then did he send the KC-X back to the USAF for management from his own office.

The second run at getting new planes was worse than the first. It was a huge embarrassment for those who believe in high standards for senior officers. I knew Seamen in the Navy I could trust more than the Flag Officers playing games last time.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
More and more of the flight crew training will be on simulators not in the aircraft unlike the KC-135. The KC-X RFP includes the purchase of simulators for crew training.

Simulators are fine for training on the cheap, as well as being able to toss a wide variety of situations to the flight crew in a short, controlled period of time.

At the same time there is huge value in actual operational training. While some reductions in real air time is possible that, in my opinion, should not reduce the value of actual air time.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:37 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
Simulators are fine for training on the cheap, as well as being able to toss a wide variety of situations to the flight crew in a short, controlled period of time.

At the same time there is huge value in actual operational training. While some reductions in real air time is possible that, in my opinion, should not reduce the value of actual air time.

The F-35 doesn't have a trainer variant, pilots flying the F-35 need to train in a simulator.

The A-10 doesn't have a trainer variant, pilots flying the A-10 need to train in a simulator.

The F-117 didn't have a trainer, they had to substitute through training in a, you guessed it, a simulator.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:32 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 46):
The A-10 doesn't have a trainer variant, pilots flying the A-10 need to train in a simulator.

From what I've read, many pilots train on actual A-10's without any sim having enough experience to not need any sim training. I don't know if all do however. That said, its likely easier to fly than even the trainers having a stall speed that is beyond low, no excessive power, and no evil traits.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:34 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
If there is going to be a replacement then it needs to be the cheapest.

Per carried gallon fuel or per aircraft?
In one case the KC-30 would be best in the other case some dirt cheap Russian tanker. IMO the 767 supporters should not rely on the "cheapest" argument....
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Will Boeing, Eads Show Details After 7/9/10?

Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:13 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
Per carried gallon fuel or per aircraft?


It's always nice to say one candidate an carry more fuel... however if the fuel isn't needed for the mission it's not a benefit.. the plane will either return with fuel on board or not take a full load in the first place. If one goes with "well refuel more aircraft" the the mission starts before the optimum point so all can be fueled before a critical point. sometimes two smaller a/c are more effective than one big one. If the argument then is enlarge the mission to make the full capacity cost effective, we can go round and round and end up with A380 tankers with 12 drogues. It's best to let the mission designers determine the mission parameters and capability requirements.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests