Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
legoguy
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:33 pm

Could Boeing really have put forward a 777 tanker? Surely with the current passenger and freighter orders the 777 has, the line is currently all booked up and the orders look set to continue rolling in over the next few years. So would a second line have been opened, IF Boeing had put forward the 777 as their challenging aircraft in the USAF deal?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:35 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Yes and no. It's a big contract, but 10-12 deliveries a year isn't exactly amazing. Mind you, it's the difference between life and death for the 767, but that's roughly a month's output on the A330 line

One of the biggest assets to winning the USG contract is not just the contact itself but follow on contracts for other countries. In other words alot of other countries will also go with the winners offering in this case EADS. If its not good enough for the US military, they are not interested period. So a EADS win here pretty much guarantees foreign sales that Boeing will never get back.

HOBO
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:37 pm



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 50):
Could Boeing really have put forward a 777 tanker? Surely with the current passenger and freighter orders the 777 has, the line is currently all booked up and the orders look set to continue rolling in over the next few years. So would a second line have been opened, IF Boeing had put forward the 777 as their challenging aircraft in the USAF deal?

This seems like a silly argument. How is this different then the A330 line which is also super backed up?

Dont get the point.

HOBO
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:41 pm



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 50):
Could Boeing really have put forward a 777 tanker? Surely with the current passenger and freighter orders the 777 has, the line is currently all booked up and the orders look set to continue rolling in over the next few years.

The A330 is doing amazingly well right now too. The 777 might need a second assembly line if they couldn't find production spots. Though they would only have to speed the current line up a little over one a month to get the 12-15 a year required, maybe to 1.5 if the USAF needed 18 a year. Not a cheap or easy proposition, but given enough lead time definitely doable.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19126
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:45 pm



Quoting Azhobo (Reply 49):
If this is the case, and the RFP if speced for a smaller aircraft, and Boeings offer met those smaller requirements and EADS did not, would definitely lead to an overturning of the outcome.

The RFP only specified the new tankers had to at least match the capability of the KC-135. It set a series of minima, but set no upper limits. Both offerings met all the criteria, but NG's was scored higher by the AF in 4 of the five criteria. The 5th criteria (risk), was scored equal. So, by the AF's evaluation, the KC-767 didn't beat the KC-30 by any measure.

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml

Quote:
So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:47 pm



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 29):
By selecting the KC-30, the USAF made sure it will get no less than 39 new tankers by 2013 already, whereas with the KC-767 only 19 planes would be delivered by then, meaning 20 KC-135 would have to be kept flying much longer... And deliveries of the KC-30s will stay well ahead of the theoretical deliveries of KC-767 for the entire delivery period, resulting in savings up to $20BN over the next 40 years compared to the KC-767!

Also, the KC-30 gets the same mission done as the KC-767 with 17% less sorties and since the KC-30 can stay 20% longer on station, it can get the same forward off loading job done with almost 25% less flight hours...
Figure the savings on heavy maintenance which is flight time related!

Here's the rub:

The tankers are only being utilized for 750 hours per year. So all this extra capacity, on station time and up lift capability are mostly going to waste. Clearly by only utilizing the tankers for 750 hours per year, they are not going to be used to haul cargo very much. So they should not be evaluated on that score.

The only argument that makes sense in favor of the A330 is the faster deliveries which could create savings over the 767. Other than that, the per trip and per hour costs of 767s is cheaper than the A330-200s. But this is really negated by the low utilization rate. So as soon as the USAF gets new tankers, they should fly the wings off of them at a far higher rate than 750 hours per year so as to keep as many KC-135s on the ground as possible. If they're not planning on doing this, then the 767 is the cheaper choice and they're merely buying unused and unneeded capability.
 
legoguy
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:48 pm



Quoting Azhobo (Reply 52):
This seems like a silly argument. How is this different then the A330 line which is also super backed up?

Dont get the point.

I was under the impression that the majority of KC30's (or KC45's) were to be built on a line in the US, effectively making a second production line. I also understand that if the deal remains, many A330F's will be built there.

My point is, IF Boeing had put forward the 777 tanker, could the single 777 line support all passenger, freighter, and tanker aircraft? I am unsure hence why I was asking. Norcal answered pretty well.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 53):
The A330 is doing amazingly well right now too. The 777 might need a second assembly line if they couldn't find production spots. Though they would only have to speed the current line up a little over one a month to get the 12-15 a year required, maybe to 1.5 if the USAF needed 18 a year. Not a cheap or easy proposition, but given enough lead time definitely doable.

But does that take into account future possible orders for Passenger and freighter 777's? I was thinking the 777 line is pretty full these days with all the orders it's had and will potentially gain in the commercial market.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:07 am



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 56):
But does that take into account future possible orders for Passenger and freighter 777's? I was thinking the 777 line is pretty full these days with all the orders it's had and will potentially gain in the commercial market.

The A330 line is very full too, but Airbus is still finding ways to make all the fueselages, wings etc. to give to NG/EADS
 
legoguy
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:23 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 57):
The A330 line is very full too, but Airbus is still finding ways to make all the fueselages, wings etc. to give to NG/EADS

Yes, indeed, but EADS would have 2 assembly lines for the A330. Boeing would have 1 assembly line for the 777. Could it cope with all the potential orders for the 777?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:30 am



Quoting Starrion (Reply 45):
What then? Congress zero-funds the program and starts all over again? The USAF funded the first four frames, so if the program does get killed would the Air Force operate the four "prototypes"?

Probably not. I suspect EADS would sell them to someone else who operates the MRTT.

But we're a long way from that.

All this current outrage could be nothing more than Congress talking tough for the benefit of the voters back home.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 48):
"The overall assessment of the RFI data shows that the EADS offering presents a higher risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement. First, EADS lacks relevant tanker experience and needs to develop an air refueling boom and operator station, making their approach a significantly higher risk. Second, a comparison of the net present values of the aircraft recommended by Boeing and EADS establishes Boeing as the preferred financial option. Third, the size difference of the EADS-proposed KC-330 results in an 81% larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29% larger. The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload. Finally, the EADS aircraft would demand a greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment."

The Air Force better be working overtime to explain this one away. Dicks is going to shove it down their throats.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5):
There's always a chance for Boeing to appeal and I'd say a very good one. I don't think any company would be wise to walk away from $40 billion in revenues without having a look at the fine print. If they did then they deserved to lose. In fact, they deserve to be out of business.

Boeing's still trying to win CSAR-X - how much do you think Boeing can piss off the USAF and then still expect to get the CSAR-X bid when many had previously speculated that it was to go to LM or Sikorsky in the first place? At best Boeing can bite their cheeks and hope & pray that they hold onto CSAR-X but if they want to try and piss off thier best customer, they might wind up losing out on both of them: the USAF is in the drivers seat here.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5):
Frankly, we have no idea what Boeing's reasons were for pitching their product the way they did.

Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Boeing wanted the sell the KC-767 because they had invested a lot of time and money into it and it would have been a huge gamble to offer an all-new KC-787 or KC-777 at what would have cost a large amount of additional moeny on Boeing's dime. Sure, that may not have been the only factor but it was the largest and most significant!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 59):
The Air Force better be working overtime to explain this one away. Dicks is going to shove it down their throats.

Easy - the study was done in 2002 almost 6 years ago: the KC-767ADV that Boeing pitched to the USAF in KC-X was as different from the initial KC-767 that they tried to lease in 2002 than the KC-330 was then to what the KC-30 that won the KC-X bid is: completely different aircraft and completely different bids on top of that.

What may have been considred a risk in 2002 was not near the risk in 2008 when after 4 previous tanker competition's went to the KC-30 over the KC-767 and while in the meantime the KC-30 has actually been assembled and flown and the KC-767 was delayed to both Italy and Japan while the -ADV version was nothing more than a paper airplane. As time changed so too did the aircraft and the bids that were ultimately submitted.

And you want to see just how little these Democrat politicians really know what they are talking about and thereby how little chance they have to axe this decision by the USAF for NG? Check out this comment by Sir Hillary: just how exactly does President Bush have anything to do with the USAF selecting the NG bid?!

Quote:

Clinton, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she was "deeply concerned about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military."

While details of the decision are not fully clear, Clinton said, "it is troubling that the Bush administration would award the second-largest Pentagon contract in our nation's history to a team that includes a European firm that our government is simultaneously suing at the [World Trade Organization] for receiving illegal subsidies."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2004258210_tanker04.html
 
checksixx
Posts: 1229
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:23 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 48):
First, EADS lacks relevant tanker experience and needs to develop an air refueling boom and operator station

Thats been done already.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 59):
The Air Force better be working overtime to explain this one away. Dicks is going to shove it down their throats.

What is to explain? The better aircraft with more capability has been selected in the competition set forth. Its over and done with. I'm sure if there is delay or anything else that causes lost money and time, those responsible will turn right around and blame the Air Force. It never fails.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
while in the meantime the KC-30 has actually been assembled and flown

And is very close to its first boom fuel transfer already.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
And you want to see just how little these Democrat politicians really know what they are talking about

Agreed!
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 am



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 58):
Yes, indeed, but EADS would have 2 assembly lines for the A330. Boeing would have 1 assembly line for the 777. Could it cope with all the potential orders for the 777?

Boeing has a moving assembly line, so speeding it up some wouldn't be the biggest production bottleneck. The limiting thing for them would be the suppliers and how much they can speed up, same for Airbus. The only reason there is a 2nd assembly line in Mobile is to Americanize the KC-30. NG/EADS is still reliant on the European suppliers to up production enough to run another assembly line. However if EADS wanted to they could speed up the TLS line and make all the tankers for the USAF there.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:42 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
And you want to see just how little these Democrat politicians really know what they are talking about and thereby how little chance they have to axe this decision by the USAF for NG? Check out this comment by Sir Hillary: just how exactly does President Bush have anything to do with the USAF selecting the NG bid?!

You keep relying on logic to support your position. Problem is, you are dealing with politicians, and logic isn't a requirement to operate in their world.

I never said the Air Force couldn't explain the difference between then and now, All I said is that they had better be ready to do so, because the WA Congressional delegation is going to be skewering them with that statement.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:47 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
What we are now hearing is that the Air Force initially wanted a smaller tanker, but that NG convinced them they wanted a larger tanker. Great salesmanship by NG, but again, it would appear that the opinions of the people actually doing the flying were lost in a sea of powerpoint presentations.

That is incorrect, the USAF never specified a size for the tanker. Th term "right size" was a Boeing marketing term, no size was ever specified in the RFP.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
With the criteria for the RFP the KC-30 was better, however that diagram you posted is a NG/EADS publication and so should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have asked over and over again for someone to come up with another one, no one has. While I believe some of the numbers may not reflect the RFP replies 100%, the trends shown I believe a very valid.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
The KC-767 is not the piece of garbage that people make it out to be (just like the A340 isn't a piece of crap because the 777 is more efficient).

No one has ever said that, not even the USAF, just not as competitive, or as capable.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
The KC-767 met all the requirements in the RFP, the KC-30 just did them better and the USAF decided they needed more capabilities instead of a direct KC-135 replacement. If the RFP had been worded more as a direct KC-135 the Boeing probably would have won.

I do not believe the KC-767 met all the RFP requirements, and at no stage did the USAF ever say they wanted a direct KC-135 replacement.

The USAF did not get another aircraft that looked like, or was the same size as a B-52 to take over its role. No one ever said the KC-135 was the "right size" to start with, and IMHO I think it was too small for many roles, and too big for others.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):

My tanker friends at Travis kept telling me that the KC-767 fit the mission profiles better, but we do have to take into account what the generals think they need and this:

Enlisted people do not have the big picture.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 9):
The RFP did call, in large part, for the competitors to perform at least as well as the KC-135.

No it did not.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 9):
Consider this: which is better, a 747 or an A330?

A 744 would not have the range or the ability to take off from the required runway length, the 748 would have the range, but would not be available in the time frame required.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 13):
However seeing the results of the metrics for this RFP and the way it was set up the KC-30 is clearly the winner. I'm not calling for any kind of a redo, all I am saying is that the KC-767 isn't the piece of garbage that people make it out to be and that there are going to be plenty of missions the USAF will fly that would have been more efficient to fly with a KC-767 and not a KC-30. (As there will be some missions like air bridging C-5s accross the oceans that the KC-30 will be better at)

NG has not made any secret of the capabilities of the KC-30. Boeing in their wisdom CHOSE not to offer a 737/747/757/787, nothing was stopping them from offering all of the models.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 27):
No I don't think there will be a need for a 777 based tanker. I think we will not lose any cargo carrying capabilities if we were to replace the entire KC-135 fleet with KC-30s (500) and not replace the KC-10s at all.

The KC-10 is not planned to start leaving the fleet until 2042.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 27):

We'll when you look at the difference in wingspan between a 777 and a A330 and compare it against the capability gained then the argument could be made for the KC-777. For 15' of extra wingspan you would gain of at least 180,000lbs of payload uplift vs the KC-30 (There is actually a difference 199,000 lbs in the MTOW between a 777F and a KC-30, but when you factor in all the boom equipment you need to add to get a KC-777 the payload numbers will drop). Compare that to the 50,000 lbs payload advantage you get out of a KC-30 vs KC-767 for a 41' increased wingspan.

A single 777 is about 100 million dollars more than a A330, multiply that over 179 frames.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
That is exactly right. The USAF clearly told Boeing what they wanted, and Boeing delivered a plane the exceeds the KC-135 in all ways that the USAF wanted. And Boeing had history on it's side, as the USAF had already chosen the 767 tanker once, only to have it scuttled.

I have the minutes and documents provided to the tenders, at no stage did the USAF tell anyone what they wanted apart from the RFP, and at no stage did Boeing ask if they wanted a 767 or 777, or if they wanted an aircraft closer to the KC-135 size.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):

NG/Airbus did NOT have a plane that met the RFP. They had a larger plane, but through "salesmanship" they were able to convince the USAF to choose the larger plane.

Suggest you read the RFP, and the process that was undertaken to go from the draft RFP versions, industry consultation, redraft, industry consultation, and the the final RFP to appease just NG, it was to appease all of industry.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
To say that the KC-30 "exceeded" the requirements is not honest. A 747 based platform may have exceeded them too, but at what cost and how big?

Well it is honest, and as I pointed out before, the 747 would not be able to take off form 7000', nor would a 744 be able to fly 9500 nm, and it would cost in the order of 100 million more a frame (list price).

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
What the USAF should have done was to either inform Boeing that they had CHANGED their requirements and wanted a larger plane, or told Boeing they were not sure of which size they wanted and Boeing should amend their offer to include the 777 as well as the 767 based aircraft. If we recall, last year it was even leaked that Boeing was considering the 777 as the platform. They must have received feedback from the USAF to tell them that the 767 was the better choice for them. So what happened?

All changes to the RFP were made public, and did involve an opportunity for the parties to discuss the changes.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
By basically changing the rules mid way to suit one of the bidders, the one who didn't have a product that met the initial requirements, the USAF has made a very stupid move. Not because the KC-30 isn't a great plane, but because they have already been slammed once for impropriety in the original tanker deal, and this only opens up more questions about how they choose anything. And by doing it this way, the Airforce has once again delayed the replacement aircraft for their aging fleet, an aircraft they already could have been flying had they not mucked up the first tanker deal with improper relationships.

You need to go read the documents, the rules were never changed. The whole paragraph is false and misleading. All the documents for the contract, and all the amendments, and all the public Q&A is still available for public viewing, nothing has been hidden.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 37):
All I was saying that if they had been looking for more of a direct KC-135 replacement we would have seen the KC-767 win.

At no stage did the USAF say that was to be the case.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
So here we have all the writing on the wall that this was in fact not an even playing field. Boeing will have alot of weight on their side if they can convince others that while currently nothing major stands out, there is plenty of little things that add up to the big picture.

It is a very level playing field, all the selection documents were made public. Any questions that were fielded to the USAF were replied to, and all parties received copies of the correspondence, most of that is on the public record.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
Little things like why did a plane larger than the KC10 win a replacement for the KC135? Why was Boeing told not to bring the 777 to the table? Why was the proposal changed part way through? Why was there delays in giving Boeing information on the RFP and its outcome?

1) Who said it was a KC-135 replacement ?
2) Who told Boeing that ?
3) That is easy, most of the changes came from questions fielded by the applicants seeking clarification to the documents.
4) Boeing and NG have had consultations with the USAF all the way during the process, it has very much been an "open door" style process. Boeing have already been made aware during the process of the strengths and weaknesses of their proposal.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 48):

I think that who post is less than factual, your references cited in my view are worthless and non authoritative.

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 50):
Could Boeing really have put forward a 777 tanker?

Sure could have, could have put anything forward, could have been a C-17 or MD-11 based tanker.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:10 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
What we are now hearing is that the Air Force initially wanted a smaller tanker, but that NG convinced them they wanted a larger tanker. Great salesmanship by NG, but again, it would appear that the opinions of the people actually doing the flying were lost in a sea of powerpoint presentations.

That is incorrect, the USAF never specified a size for the tanker. Th term "right size" was a Boeing marketing term, no size was ever specified in the RFP.

I never said the Air Force specified a size for the tanker. I was repeating anecdotal evidence from another post in the locked thread, which was quoting fom the following Seattle Times article.

Quote:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 320):
It appears, in retrospect, that the USAF really wants a bigger plane.

Not quite. Check out this statement from an article in the Seattle Times this morning:

Quote:
"The Air Force started out believing that the larger aircraft was a liability," Thompson said. "Northrop did such a superior job of analysis that they convinced a reluctant Air Force to treat the larger aircraft as an asset."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...n=rss

Might I ask you to please take the time to accurately read my posts before incorrectly characterizing them? Thanks!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:11 am



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 58):
Boeing would have 1 assembly line for the 777. Could it cope with all the potential orders for the 777?

Once the 767 line folded, they could convert 40-24 to 777 production. They do a good deal of 777 finishing work in there now when the 767s are in the back.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:15 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 55):
So all this extra capacity, on station time and up lift capability are mostly going to waste.

Not really. The KC-30 allows the USAF to fight bigger, faster wars, assuming you have an equal number of jets.


More important than hours, I feel is maintainability. USAF birds tend to sit around. The second 20 years is just as important as the first 20 years. These will be 40 year aircraft. So hopefully, they can be overhauled, sit around 20 years, and still operate with high reliability and few faults.

Can the Airbus do that, probably.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:29 am



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 29):
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 25):
It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America.

Somebody needs to tell this gentlemen Mobile, AL is situated in the USA...

Let me see, the wings will be built where? Filton?

The fuselage sections will be built where? Toulouse?

Someone needs to tell this gentleman that neither is in the USA.

F4N
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:31 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 65):
I never said the Air Force specified a size for the tanker.



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 65):
What we are now hearing is that the Air Force initially wanted a smaller tanker,

What am I missing ?

All NG did was showed the USAF using their CMARPS (Combined Mating & Ranging Planning System) that a more capable airframe fitted their mission profiles better. The size of the aircraft is not a factor in CMARPS or the RFP, just capability.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:44 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 69):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 65):
I never said the Air Force specified a size for the tanker.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 65):
What we are now hearing is that the Air Force initially wanted a smaller tanker,

What am I missing ?

Evidently, the ability to read the entire post.   

I don't believe I've ever said I was present during the deliberations of the contract award board, so for me to make an assertion that I "knew" for a fact what the Air Force wanted.

There's a big difference in saying "The Air Force wanted a smaller tanker" offered as a factual statement (which I did not do) and "we're hearing that the Air Force wanted a smaller tanker."

Tell you what. I'll rewrite my first sentence of Post 2, just for you.

"What some in the press are now reporting, along with aviation hobbyists on the web site "Airliners.net", is that there is speculation about whether the Air Force initially wanted a smaller tanker, but that NG convinced them during the presentation of their proposal that they really wanted a larger tanker."

There! Happy Now?

[Edited 2008-03-04 19:16:50]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:52 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
Check out this comment by Sir Hillary: just how exactly does President Bush have anything to do with the USAF selecting the NG bid?!

You're going to let a politician running for high office in an election year get under your skin with those comments? Get a grip, Devil Dog!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
Boeing's still trying to win CSAR-X - how much do you think Boeing can piss off the USAF and then still expect to get the CSAR-X bid when many had previously speculated that it was to go to LM or Sikorsky in the first place?

I'm sure Boeing is gaining valuable experience on the GAO/appeals process with CSAR that will be put to good use with KC-45.  Wink
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:58 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
I do not believe the KC-767 met all the RFP requirements

Just curious, but what in your opinion might the particular RFP requirements have been that the KC-767 did not meet? I'm not looking to start a thread war; I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:06 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 68):
Let me see, the wings will be built where? Filton?

Assembled....see http://www.compositesworld.com/news/cwweekly/2007/May/cw111515 "Vought wins A330/A340 wing program extension", most if it is made in the US.

Quoting F4N (Reply 68):
The fuselage sections will be built where? Toulouse?

Most of the fuselage is flown into TLS, TLS is the final assembly line.

Quoting F4N (Reply 68):
Someone needs to tell this gentleman that neither is in the USA.

46% of all EADS/Airbus aircraft content comes from the US (not including engines). EADS/Airbus is the biggest single export customer of the US aerospace industry.

EADS/Airbus has been putting more jobs into the US aerospace industry, Boeing in the mean time has been exporting jobs overseas. Boeing shipped far more jobs overseas with the 787 program than what will be employed by EADS/Airbus in Europe for this KC-45 program.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:26 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 61):
And is very close to its first boom fuel transfer already.

Already happened last Friday. Funny coincidence.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 62):
The only reason there is a 2nd assembly line in Mobile is to Americanize the KC-30.

Not the only reason, EADS/Airbus really wants to spread more costs in the dollar zone too.

Quoting F4N (Reply 68):
The fuselage sections will be built where? Toulouse?

Mostly Germany actually.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:26 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 67):
The KC-30 allows the USAF to fight bigger, faster wars

Bigger faster wars??? does the EADS acft have more than one boom to refuel more than ONE fast mover at a time? Is the USAF going to start installing AR Probes on F-22's and B-2's so than more than one acft can be refueled at a time on the hoses?

Answer: No...so the first question stands...how is one LARGER tanker going to put more guns on target (bigger wars) in less time (faster)?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:26 am

Whats even funnier is Airbus promoting thier higher rate boom and drogues as a positive when it doesn't actualy offload any faster at all to anything but large bombers or other tankers that happen to have reciever equipment.

Fighters just can't take the extra fuel flow, so... whats the point.

Even if it is a large bomber, the difference in offload time is going to be fairly trivial.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:36 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 62):
However if EADS wanted to they could speed up the TLS line and make all the tankers for the USAF there.



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 75):
Answer: No...so the first question stands...how is one LARGER tanker going to put more guns on target (bigger wars) in less time (faster)?

Sort of like this. With bigger fuel loads, the KC-30 loiter in its position longer, and cover more remote places with greater fuel loads.

That means all our C-5s and C-117s and B-2s can span across the entire Earth, nonstop. This speeds up the deployment of our military. Then, it allows us to support heavier bombing (and whatever else the USAF does) at remote locations where there is no Air Force base nearby to fuel up.

These situations are complex. If we need to battle something in Central Asia with a huge amount of firepower, tankers are the only way we will be able to do that. The more fuel in the sky, the more bombing runs we can do AND bring in cargo+troops as well, quickly.

If there is no hurry, then we don't need tankers barely at all. Except for tactical strikes etc. And I agree, the Boeing is perfectly good at that. If you don't need a huge quantity of range and fuel then the Boeing works just great.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:50 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 76):
Fighters just can't take the extra fuel flow, so... whats the point.

Considering the fact that existing designs could potentially be improved/retrofitted to take fuel faster and that there will be new designs over the next forty or so years this tanker will be used, this could be very useful. When a group of a/c is being fueled, every extra minute on the boom or drogue for one a/c is an extra minute of fuel burn for the others. Save fuel, gain extra range, carry more weapons, etc. All of these are worthy goals.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:25 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 48):
Anywhere you look really. As an example -

KC-45A unit cost $200M http://www.ebamgoo.com/?q=Northrop_Grumman_KC-45

Unit cost of the KC-767 $130-$150M, http://www.answers.com/topic/boeing-...c-767

A civilian A330 retails for c. $90m. A civilian 767 retails for, what? $70m?
(And we're EXPLICITLY told that the USAF took the time to research REAL market prices for these aircraft this time).
Most of the rest of the programme costs (programme management, and militarisation of the product) will be, by definition, remarkably similar. These will be the majority of the costs, BTW.

So either the Boeing bid was offering 767 airframes at $20m apiece, or your referenced numbers are absolutely meaningless. I suspect it's the latter.
The maximum difference for the KC45 bid be more than $20m per frame, and I'm willing to bet NG/EADS played harder ball financially than BA. (on all cost areas)
The acquisition cost difference will be minimal.  yes 

Quoting NorCal (Reply 62):
Boeing has a moving assembly line, so speeding it up some wouldn't be the biggest production bottleneck.

Breaking news - you can't just "turn up" a moving assembly line.  no 
It usually requires a re-engineering of both the product itself, and the supply chain, not to mention the assembly procedures.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
Once the 767 line folded, they could convert 40-24 to 777 production.

Thought this was going to be the 2nd 787 FAL?  scratchchin 

Quoting F4N (Reply 68):
Let me see, the wings will be built where? Filton?

The fuselage sections will be built where? Toulouse?

Someone needs to tell this gentleman that neither is in the USA.

Apart from the glaring errors in this statement, why go down this road?
Any modern aircraft will have a supply chain that stretches around the world, INCLUDING the 767.
This is an ignorant argument at best. (IMO)

Regards
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10629
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:15 am

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 75):
does the EADS acft have more than one boom to refuel more than ONE fast mover at a time? Is the USAF going to start installing AR Probes on F-22's and B-2's so than more than one acft can be refueled at a time on the hoses?

They don't have to install AR's, the USAF is developing autonomous in-flight refueling. It will ultimately replace what happens now and it will allow simultaneous, multi-aircraft refueling with B/R's (though the system is currently using probe & drogue in development). Its probably 5-10 years off.

I'll be curious if this is partly what the General's were looking at as the future of the KC-45A, the mission of the USAF is/will be changing from what it is now to more unpiloted aircraft (I'm not suggesting the tankers will be) in higher "swarm" quantities than the fighter and attack aircraft of today.

Its a brave new world folks.
http://www.darpa.mil/body/news/2007/aard.pdf

Quote:
The exceptional performance ultimately achieved by the program was made possible by
two major enhancements to the AARD system. Improved video processing eliminated
troublesome dropouts, allowing the system to conduct four times as many plug attempts per
flight, while advanced control algorithms proved capable of anticipating much of the overall
drogue motion. These algorithms were actually able to precisely match the drogue motion –
something pilots are specifically taught to avoid. In one case, the system followed the drogue
through a full three-foot cycle in the two seconds before making contact, never deviating more
than four inches from the exact centerline of the drogue, all while traveling at 250 miles per
hour, 18,000 feet above the Tehachapi Mountains.


Tug

[Edited 2008-03-04 23:21:08]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:40 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
while Boeing failed to play down those strengths.

If a company needs to play down strengths of the competitor instead of promoting strengths of the own product things get difficult. The Leahy-type-of-comments arise from situations like this!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
To say that the KC-30 "exceeded" the requirements is not honest. A 747 based platform may have exceeded them too, but at what cost and how big?

But in this case it seems that prices were about equal. How stupid must a buyer be to decline a much better offer FOR the same price just to ensure that more parts have a certain "made-in"-stamp on it?

As things stand presently I would be embarrassed if because of national-pride the USAF would get lemons instead of candy (for the same price). Though I agree with NorCal that the KC767 is not a lemon. Just compared with the KC30 it seems to offer zero advantages (including price).

I think the USAF will take pleasure about their new tanker toy soon!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19126
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:43 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 48):
Interesting what the Air Force previously concluded compared with what they concluded now:



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 59):
The Air Force better be working overtime to explain this one away.

As has been pointed out, a lot has changed since then. Not least, EADS now partnering with NG.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 72):
Just curious, but what in your opinion might the particular RFP requirements have been that the KC-767 did not meet?

The KC-767 did meet all the requirements of the RFP (Boeing would have been incredibly dumb to offer it if it didn't).

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml (my emphasis)

Quote:
So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
VHHYI
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:52 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:48 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
(BusinessWeek) it would have based its proposal on the larger Boeing 777 instead of the 767.

What has the hubbub about Boeing talking to the Air Force and saying a KC-777 would not be required?
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:31 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 79):
Any modern aircraft will have a supply chain that stretches around the world, INCLUDING the 767.

That's nice that you include the 767 in the club of modern aircrafts! Today we can say the successor (787) is here and has made the 787 completely obsolete for passenger service. I thought that the 767 was maybe the last of all Boeing and Airbus models that just not has a world-wide supply chain (on a large scale)!

But I must say the 767 it is a very nice aircraft which had a huge impact in air traveling (Atlantic route fragmentation)!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:25 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 77):
Sort of like this. With bigger fuel loads, the KC-30 loiter in its position longer, and cover more remote places with greater fuel loads.

Theoretically your statement holds some logic, but is limited to the point of crew endurance, which is constant based on AF policy so longer station keeping may not actually occur or have an impact.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 77):
If there is no hurry, then we don't need tankers barely at all. Except for tactical strikes etc. And I agree, the Boeing is perfectly good at that. If you don't need a huge quantity of range and fuel then the Boeing works just great.

I don't doubt the Airbus is a fine acft will be a capable tanker acft, I just wonder if the USAF made it clear in the RFP they desired the largest possible aircraft...if not, someone has some explaining to do to Congress (GAO), if so...shame on Boeing who has airframes comparable with the A330 and should have offered a different airframe.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:17 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 85):

Theoretically your statement holds some logic, but is limited to the point of crew endurance, which is constant based on AF policy so longer station keeping may not actually occur or have an impact.

KC-X SRD requirements called for crew rest facilities

3.2.11.8 Crew Rest
3.2.11.8.1 Separated crew rest accommodations shall be provided for three crewmembers (THRESHOLD), equipped with emergency oxygen access and individual lighting suitable for reading.
3.2.11.8.2 Separated crew rest accommodations shall be provided for six crewmembers (OBJECTIVE), equipped with emergency oxygen access and individual lighting suitable for reading.
3.2.11.8.3 The crew rest accommodations shall be capable of providing eight hours of uninterrupted sleep.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 85):
I just wonder if the USAF made it clear in the RFP they desired the largest possible aircraft...if not, someone has some explaining to do to Congress (GAO), if so...shame on Boeing who has airframes comparable with the A330 and should have offered a different airframe.

The RFP did not express any fuel offload size, just efficiency

Quote:
4.2.2.3.7 Aircraft fuel efficiency

The offeror shall document the fuel efficiency of the proposed aircraft in the aerial refueling mission. The offeror shall use the following definition of efficiency:

Aerial Refueling Efficiency = (fuel offloaded) / (fuel burned + fuel offloaded)

The offeror shall compute and present the aerial refueling efficiency for the same conditions (ground rules) as used to generate the aerial refueling offload versus radius chart/data of 4.2.2.3.3. for radii of 500 nautical miles (NM) through 2,500 NM inclusive. Offeror shall also compute Aerial Refueling Efficiency (as defined above) for offeror-defined optimum efficiency flight profiles to offload fuel at the same radii. The offeror shall document the basis of the data used for computations (e.g., estimated, flight test) and all ground rules and assumptions used in the calculations. The offeror shall identify and discuss any proposed changes to the baseline commercial aircraft for increased fuel efficiency and provide data to validate estimated efficiency increases and/or fuel savings.

If Boeing could have provided a more efficient airframe, and failed to do so, that is not the fault of the USAF or NG, that is the fault of Boeing management not putting their best platform forward. Please note, on list prices the 777 would be about 100 million per frame than a A330, with 179 frames, I thin it would have been doubtful that the 777 could have come in under budget.

Boeing managers were on the public recored as not wanting to give the USAF a "shopping list" of alternative frames, a move which looks like it may have backfired n them. Boeing, no one else, tried to out think what the USAF wanted, and then tried to proceed to tell the USAF what they had with the 767 was "right sized".
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:34 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 85):
I just wonder if the USAF made it clear in the RFP they desired the largest possible aircraft...

The USAF didn't want 'the largest possible' aircraft, they wanted an aircraft which is 'at least as capable' as the KC135 in all aspects. That's a very big difference:

The 2 proposed successors to the KC135 -the KC767 and the KC30- are both bigger planes, so regardless of the choice of the Pentagon, the USAF was always going to end up with a bigger and more capable tanker plane.

Boeing fully played the 'mine is closer in size to the KC135' card because it was all it had, yet NG successfully demonstrated that the KC30, although being larger indeed, doesn't have a larger footprint when you compare it to the KC767 not on a 1-to-1 basis, but rather on a mission basis, nor does a KC30 fleet needed for any given mission require more ground infrastructure (i.e. larger ramps, stronger taxiways or longer runways) than a KC-767 fleet would to do for the same mission, quite on the contrary even, it turns out that the KC30 -despite its superior air lift capabilities- can actually operate from MORE airports than the KC767 can!

In short, despite the KC30 being bigger than the KC767, it comes with NO downsides, in fact it even uses its greater size to its advantage.

Sure, if the US Airforce is really after the biggest plane, Boeing could easily beat the air lift and off load capabilities of the KC30 with a KC777, but it would not meat the criteria that the successor to the KC135 needs to be usable everywhere the KC135 is. A KC777 would be limited to not even 1/3rd of the number of airports the KC30 can operate, so it is a less capable plane than the KC135 when it comes to flexibility. The USAF only wanted the extra capabilities if they come with NO downside, so to say they were after the biggest plane is just wrong really.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:42 pm

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 85):
if not, someone has some explaining to do to Congress (GAO), if so...

Why? They issued a uniform set of criteria to both bid participants, and one did a damn sight better job at selling their offering than the other did. Thats what resulted in the USAF accepting a larger aircraft as the better bid.

[Edited 2008-03-05 05:42:14]
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:44 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 85):
if not, someone has some explaining to do to Congress (GAO), if so...shame on Boeing who has airframes comparable with the A330 and should have offered a different airframe.

The fact is Boeing does NOT have a comparable frame to the A330...

The 767 is greatly insufficient to be any sort of match as the USAF has now also concluded, just as have in fact virtually all airlines in the world, to the exception of a handful of Japanese (NK) and US airlines (CO, DL). Coming to think of it: they now really look like idiots, don't they?

The 777 is simply too big, too bony and too heavy for the kind of 'medium style' missions the USAF had in mind for he KC-X, again just as airlines in Asia have discovered. SQ has not for nothing decided to order the A330 to replace their 772s with: unless you use a 772 to its max capabilities on either payload or range, it actually is not the most efficient plane and to operate from 7,000ft long runways, a KC777 would have to be severely misused.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:33 pm

Couple of interesting quotes from an article someone linked to earlier -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8210_tanker04.html?syndication=rss

Regarding the size issue -

Quote:

"The Air Force started out believing that the larger aircraft was a liability," Thompson said. "Northrop did such a superior job of analysis that they convinced a reluctant Air Force to treat the larger aircraft as an asset."

Regarding manufacturer performance -

Quote:

On past performance, the big delays to the Japanese and Italian 767 tanker programs weighed heavily against Boeing, Thompson said.

Regarding how quickly each team could deliver -

Quote:

"The reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year."

 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:39 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 79):
Breaking news - you can't just "turn up" a moving assembly line.
It usually requires a re-engineering of both the product itself, and the supply chain, not to mention the assembly procedures.

I'm not saying it is simple or easy, what I am saying the real slow down is sourcing the sub assemblies and long lead time items like landing gear. That is where the biggest production bottleneck occurs and that is why supply chain is the hardest thing to speed up.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 89):
Coming to think of it: they now really look like idiots, don't they?

CO is very well run airline and makes plenty of money. DL is doing very well too. Would it be fair to say that every airline that ordered A340s are "idiots" because a 777 is more efficient?

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 89):
SQ has not for nothing decided to order the A330 to replace their 772s with: unless you use a 772 to its max capabilities on either payload or range,

The same can be said for KC-30 vs KC-767; unless you use the KC-30 to its max potential than it isn't as efficient as a KC-767.

That being said I still do think the USAF made the right decision in choosing the KC-30. I just want there to be some realization on here that the KC-30 won't be perfect for a lot of missions the USAF flies. I think one of the best things the KC-30 will bring is good C-5 and C-17 relief with its high cargo capabilities.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:56 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 91):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 79):
Breaking news - you can't just "turn up" a moving assembly line.
It usually requires a re-engineering of both the product itself, and the supply chain, not to mention the assembly procedures.

I'm not saying it is simple or easy, what I am saying the real slow down is sourcing the sub assemblies and long lead time items like landing gear. That is where the biggest production bottleneck occurs and that is why supply chain is the hardest thing to speed up.

Airbus is going to have the same issues with ramping up production, even on a 2nd line, that a lot of people on here are saying Boeing would have encountered if they pitched the 777. Opening a 2nd production line alleviates the bottleneck at the end of the production cycle, but all it does is create bottlenecks further upstream in the production/supply chain. All of those sub-contractors have their own assembly lines and supply chains and each one is going to have to increase production accordingly. Opening a 2nd assembly line only serves to shift the burden elsewhere (perhaps spreading it out), but it certainly doesn't eliminate it.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:00 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 79):
Thought this was going to be the 2nd 787 FAL?  scratchchin 

Heck it could become a 2nd 747 FAL. That's the beauty of it.  Smile

But yes, I know you are referring to my earlier statements. However, if the KC-777 had been offered and selected and an additional was needed, Boeing could have dedicated 40-24 to it. However, in the situation of the 767 line being closed and the 777 line not needing a second FAL, converting 40-24 to a second 787 FAL would be a logical step for Boeing to take.  Smile



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 89):
The fact is Boeing does NOT have a comparable frame to the A330...

The 767 is greatly insufficient to be any sort of match as the USAF has now also concluded...(and)...the 777 is simply too big, too bony and too heavy for the kind of 'medium style' missions the USAF had in mind for he KC-X.

Yet this might just play into the hands of those in Congress who want to see the deal reversed.

I am hearing through the grapevine that the USAF told Boeing a KC-777 would be too big and they should therefore not bother to submit it. If that is the case, then the USAF had set the stage for the KC-30A to win by default and Boeing was never in the running for the contract. So instead of the the KC-30A being added to keep Boeing honest on price, it was in fact the KC-767 being added to keep NG/EADS honest on price because they were pre-disposed to win the contract due to Boeing not having a competitive offering with the 767 and denied the chance to offer the 777.

Jingoism and patriotism being what it is, especially in an election year, this could make it very hard for the USAF to defend the decision of deciding on the "foreign" plane early in the RFP and just keeping Boeing around to ensure that NG/EADS did not "soak" the taxpayer.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:08 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
If that is the case, then the USAF had set the stage for the KC-30A to win by default and Boeing was never in the running for the contract.

I dont think so, if you consider this -

Quoting Moo (Reply 90):
Regarding the size issue -

Quote:

"The Air Force started out believing that the larger aircraft was a liability," Thompson said. "Northrop did such a superior job of analysis that they convinced a reluctant Air Force to treat the larger aircraft as an asset."

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:12 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
I am hearing through the grapevine that the USAF told Boeing a KC-777 would be too big and they should therefore not bother to submit it.

Too big and too expensive are not the same. All this talk of a 777 and people keep skipping the point of price, a 200ER frame would be about 50 million more, and a 200LR frame would be about 100 million more on list prices.

With GE teaming up with NG, that put a 772F based tanker out of the picture, a 772ER airframe with P&W engines maybe not much better than a A332 at all.

Also Boeing said a 777 tanker would take 3 years to develop, which is not in the RFP time frame.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:20 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
I am hearing through the grapevine that the USAF told Boeing a KC-777 would be too big and they should therefore not bother to submit it. If that is the case, then the USAF had set the stage for the KC-30A to win by default and Boeing was never in the running for the contract. So instead of the the KC-30A being added to keep Boeing honest on price, it was in fact the KC-767 being added to keep NG/EADS honest on price because they were pre-disposed to win the contract due to Boeing not having a competitive offering with the 767 and denied the chance to offer the 777.

That would pose an interesting situation because it was NG/EADS that kept pressuring the USAF to modify the RFP in the beginning to give greater value to the KC-30s advantages or else they would not participate in the competition. All the way around, it appears the USAF was not completely as upfront or open as they've been claiming they were the last few days (assuming your grapevine is accurate).
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:30 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 79):
A civilian A330 retails for c. $90m. A civilian 767 retails for, what? $70m?
(And we're EXPLICITLY told that the USAF took the time to research REAL market prices for these aircraft this time).
Most of the rest of the programme costs (programme management, and militarisation of the product) will be, by definition, remarkably similar. These will be the majority of the costs, BTW.

So either the Boeing bid was offering 767 airframes at $20m apiece, or your referenced numbers are absolutely meaningless. I suspect it's the latter.
The maximum difference for the KC45 bid be more than $20m per frame, and I'm willing to bet NG/EADS played harder ball financially than BA. (on all cost areas)

Gallois said they didn't discount heavily.

Also, NG/EADS's proposal was based on the A330-to-freighter conversion. They are now changing to the A330F which automatically adds up to $15M per frame, but didn't tell the AF because they knew it would increase the cost differential even more.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 76):
Fighters just can't take the extra fuel flow, so... whats the point.

Interesting - I did not know that.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 77):
That means all our C-5s and C-117s and B-2s can span across the entire Earth, nonstop.

What was stopping them before? I would assume a rendezvous would be planned in advance. And where are the KC-10's - busy flying cargo instead of providing fuel?  Wink

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 82):
As has been pointed out, a lot has changed since then. Not least, EADS now partnering with NG.

Exactly how has the A330 changed since the last time it was rejected? The plane hasn't changed significantly - only the politics.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
If Boeing could have provided a more efficient airframe, and failed to do so, that is not the fault of the USAF or NG, that is the fault of Boeing management not putting their best platform forward.

If the efficiency is based on the criteria you listed, then this was obviously written specifically for NG/EADS. The question is - will those KC-30's land with fuel remaining as has been indicated currently is SOP? If so, then that should have been used rather than a simple calculation based on raw numbers.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 87):
Boeing fully played the 'mine is closer in size to the KC135' card because it was all it had, yet NG successfully demonstrated that the KC30, although being larger indeed, doesn't have a larger footprint when you compare it to the KC767 not on a 1-to-1 basis, but rather on a mission basis,

The only way it won't have a larger footprint is if there are fewer of them. You argue about the mission, so consider this - it's been said that 4 A330's can do the job of 5 KC767's. That's based solely on raw numbers. That means that where you would have 5 KC767's with their 5 booms and 10 drogues, you now only have 4 booms and 8 drogues. If you are refueling anything but heavy bombers, you now have REDUCED your operational capability.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 87):
In short, despite the KC30 being bigger than the KC767, it comes with NO downsides, in fact it even uses its greater size to its advantage.

Higher fuel burn and maintenance, both of which NG/EADS have acknowledged (Meyer), as well as shorter frame life (FAA).

I find it ironic that those who mocked the pseudo-patriotic angle are now riding that very same angle themselves. "Don't appeal! Don't deny our heroes the tools they need! Blah blah blah." Not that that has anything to do with your comments, Sabenapilot.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:38 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 96):
Also Boeing said a 777 tanker would take 3 years to develop, which is not in the RFP time frame.

How long is it going to take Airbus to construct and set up the assembly line in MOB, install the tooling, hire and train all of the workers, deal with the union issues that are looming as a result of outsourcing production off of the Continent, and increase production on their supply chain?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos