• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:57 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 349):
Why is there an inconsistency?

Because you're relying on a Leeham doc dated 2005, perhaps......

Where is the problem? Have the laws of physics changed? Have they changed how much a pound weighs? Has Airbus upgraded something on the A330MRTT since 2005? What does the date of the document have to do with this particular point. At least Khobar cited something to back up his assertion. All we have gotten from you Jack is pontification. Where are your sources Jack?
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:14 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 328):
Of course, you weren't relying on somebody else's blog when you posted your allegedly factual claim that the process was fair, right?

For a contract lawyer, that's not very good reading comprehension.

Quoting Alien (Reply 330):
First, no high performance fighter out turns a super bug low and slow.

Thrust vectoring nozzles sure do. The MiG-29 and Su-27 both have even more pronounced LERX than any Hornet and on an F-22 for example with thrust vectoring nozzles, there are indeed plenty of "high performance fighters" out there with even superior low and slow characteristics.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:31 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 351):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 328):
Of course, you weren't relying on somebody else's blog when you posted your allegedly factual claim that the process was fair, right?

For a contract lawyer, that's not very good reading comprehension.

LOL, I'm not a contract lawyer!

But my comment remains accurate. If you were relying on someone's else's blog when you posted your original "it was fair" comment, you didn't cite it, did you?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:14 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 351):
there are indeed plenty of "high performance fighters" out there with even superior low and slow characteristics.

Not really.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 351):
The MiG-29 and Su-27 both have even more pronounced LERX

While LERX (or canards) certainly helps to generate lift at high AOA it is not the only factor. Thrust, wing loading, wing shape, control surfaces, and FBW system all factor in to the equation.

As for thrust vectoring you are correct and I should have been more precise in my statement.

As for plenty of high performance fighters there are only two fighters in volume production that have thrust vectoring. The F-22 and the SU-30MKI. All others are either proposed or in prototype stage.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:07 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 348):
The page clearly states in black and white that the KC767AT met ALL, not some, of the KPP's. There's not really any gray area there. The briefing you've referred to is a subset of what is in print.

It said "meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)", as we know one of the KPP objectives was for MTOW takeoff from 7,000' runway. Boeing on their own web site says the KC-767AT cannot even takeoff at MTOW from 8,000 ft, "ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway", from http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:22 pm

My sources?

RAF FSTA evaluation and European Future AAR Group evaluation.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:21 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 354):
It said "meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)", as we know one of the KPP objectives was for MTOW takeoff from 7,000' runway. Boeing on their own web site says the KC-767AT cannot even takeoff at MTOW from 8,000 ft, "ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway", from http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html

Which goes back to my assertion about claims, since Boeing states in black and white regarding meeting or exceeding ALL KPP's.

The performance specs given in those pages are generic for the "KC-767". This is supported by the fact that Boeing gives two different capabilities when supposedly talking about the same plane, and they list two different versions under the same heading.

That's different from making a public claim about the AF's assessment. One is inactionable, the other is potentially actionable making Boeing vulnerable if it is untrue (though I dare say this particular claim will be the least of their problems in that event).
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:38 pm

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 355):
My sources?

RAF FSTA evaluation and European Future AAR Group evaluation.

That is the problem. Different Air Forces, different missions, different needs. Don't start with another rant about Mildenhall. The RAF and the USAF are two very different organizations. They operate out of different bases and they have different missions using different fleets of aircraft.

That said. Care to provide some links.

[Edited 2008-03-17 10:39:23]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:55 pm

I have them as hard copies only, I'm afraid.

Of course the USAF and the RAF do things differently, but both want capable, cost effective tankers, and both measure that capability and cost effectiveness against particular sortie profiles - taking off from runway X, with a balanced field length of Y, to fly Z miles to the towline, remaining there for W minutes, and returning to runway X with diversion fuel equivalent for V minutes to tanks dry, and asking how much fuel is available for offload.

I note with interest that the US requirement stipulates an RTB with two hours of fuel - whereas the RAF and NATO wanted only one hour.

A bigger tanker won't always be better - it depends on the particular values you give to V, W, X, Y and Z. Indeed in the FSTA evaluation a five-tank A310 MRTT did better than a 767.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:34 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 357):

That is the problem. Different Air Forces, different missions, different needs. Don't start with another rant about Mildenhall. The RAF and the USAF are two very different organizations. They operate out of different bases and they have different missions using different fleets of aircraft.

Don't dismiss the importance of Mildenhall. It does seem odd that supposedly the only aircraft that would have trouble there also happens to be the other aircraft in the competition though.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 358):
A bigger tanker won't always be better - it depends on the particular values you give to V, W, X, Y and Z. Indeed in the FSTA evaluation a five-tank A310 MRTT did better than a 767.

"The final Boeing proposal for the KC-767AT is tailored to meet or exceed all of the Air Force's mission requirements." http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080103b_nr.html

Boeing's AF brief repeats this - http://www.leeham.net/filelib/BoeingAFABrief.pdf

Boeing's website states, "The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)."

If 7,000' MTOW t/o was a KPP, then Boeing claimed long ago that the AT version met that requirement, and Boeing has since stated the AF agreed. http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/facts.html

I've looked at the links provided by Zeke, and I'm not dismissing them at all. I do see evidence that the specs in those links are generic, and that may well be the case. Unfortunately, there is nothing concrete and thus the information is subject to interpretation. The outright claim that the KC-767AT met or exceeded ALL performance requirements, however, is crystal clear even if it is out of sync with expectations.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:11 pm

Only Boeing is claiming that the 767 met the RFP, and only Boeing says that the Air Force agrees.

We know that the 767 cannot take off at MTOW with 10,000 ft balanced field length. We know that the KC-30 can.

Was that a requirement?

More vitally, should it be a requirement?

And even more vitally, which aircraft will give the USAF the best tanker, best suited to today's requirements?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:51 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
We know that the 767 cannot take off at MTOW with 10,000 ft balanced field length. We know that the KC-30 can.

Was that a requirement?

More vitally, should it be a requirement?

I don't know if it WAS a requirement, but would say it would have been a poorly worded requirement if it ever got to print.

This is to be a tanker aircraft with some cargo/pax capability. If a candidate can carry the load the USAF calls for at less than the airframe's MTOW...why would one have to have to operate from 10k runways at MTOW?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:17 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 361):
I don't know if it WAS a requirement, but would say it would have been a poorly worded requirement if it ever got to print.

This is to be a tanker aircraft with some cargo/pax capability. If a candidate can carry the load the USAF calls for at less than the airframe's MTOW...why would one have to have to operate from 10k runways at MTOW?

Need to be clear with the English being used here.

This is what the SRD says

Quote:
3.2.1.1.4 Takeoff and Landing Performance
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.

The KPP threshold (requirement) 3.2.1.1.4.1 - the KC-767 can do that with a light load  thumbsup 

The KPP objective (extra points) 3.2.1.1.4.2 - the KC-767 cannot do that, it cannot even takeoff in 8,000' http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html  thumbsdown 

But Boeing is say that the KC-767 "meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)" which is clearly incorrect., it does not meet objective 3.2.1.1.4.2.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
We know that the 767 cannot take off at MTOW with 10,000 ft balanced field length. We know that the KC-30 can.

Was that a requirement?

No it was not a requirement and I suspect you know that.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
We know that the KC-30 can.

Whether it can or cannot is moot. It is neither a threshold or objective requirement.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
And even more vitally, which aircraft will give the USAF the best tanker, best suited to today's requirements?

Congress will eventually decide that when taking all factors military, economic, and budgetary. It could be the KC-30, KC-767, or the least expensive alternative, upgrade the KC-135Es to KC-135R standard for less than $45 million a plane and have them continue to serve until 2040 as the are capable of doing.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 362):
But Boeing is say that the KC-767 "meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)"

Where does Boeing say they met all "objective requirements"?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:56 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 363):
Whether it can or cannot is moot. It is neither a threshold or objective requirement.

Problem comprehending this ?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 362):
This is what the SRD says

Quote:
3.2.1.1.4 Takeoff and Landing Performance
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.



Quoting Alien (Reply 363):
Where does Boeing say they met all "objective requirements"?

On their web site.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:16 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 364):
Problem comprehending this ?

I would strongly suggest you re-read the remark directed at Jack. It was in reference to the 10,000 foot "requirement" and not the actual 7000 foot SRD threshold/objective.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 364):
Quoting Alien (Reply 363):
Where does Boeing say they met all "objective requirements"?

On their web site.


You mean this?
"The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)."

What is wrong with it? It met the threshold as in "meets OR exceeds".

[Edited 2008-03-18 23:21:10]

[Edited 2008-03-18 23:23:59]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:53 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 365):
What is wrong with it? It met the threshold as in "meets OR exceeds".

You said "It is neither a threshold or objective requirement", the 7,000' runway was a threshold and requirement for the takeoff distance KPP outlined above, and 10,000' for the fuel offload KPP.

Boeing states on their web site that they cannot takeoff from even 8,000' at MTOW, 7,000' was the objective, it has not met or exceeded that KPP objective.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:03 pm

Mate, without being rude, I simply cannot begin to have a sensible debate with someone who is seriously putting forward the conversion of 50 year old KC-135Es to KC-135R standards as an alternative to buying new tankers. It's sheer lunacy, and it's just too hard to avoid appearing rude in dismissing such arrant nonsense.

Great as the -135 was in its day, these airframes are starting to show their age, support costs are spiralling, the aircraft is riddled with obsolescence issues, (numerous suppliers no longer exist), they no longer meet modern health and safety requirements and their continued airworthiness must be in doubt.

And as if that were not enough, they are too small for modern post Cold War expeditionary missions, carrying too little fuel and being tied to very long runways, lacking the basing flexibility that the USAF wants. Yes the -135 can fly the missions it is now being tasked to do, but it is not being tasked to do missions that are beyond its capability (for obvious reasons) though such missions are what the USAF needs.

That's why Boeing didn't offer a 707 or 737-based tanker to meet the new requirement.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:45 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
And as if that were not enough, they are too small for modern post Cold War expeditionary missions, carrying too little fuel and being tied to very long runways, lacking the basing flexibility that the USAF wants

While I don't believe your speaking to be about sensible debate, I couldn't help but answer this comment. The USAF decides what it's tanker needs are (just as other nations do) and point of fact is the USAF fleet of fighter, bomber and airlift aircraft are getting SMALLER in the post cold war force structure, not bigger, so less, not more tanker capacity is required. We have fewer people, aircraft, and bases today than during the cold war, in fact, the USAF (along with all branches of the DoD) were cut nearly in half in the 1990's. As for the global expeditionary nature of the mission today, this is little different from supporting nearly twice the force that previously was assigned to bases overseas full time.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 362):
This is what the SRD says

Quote:
3.2.1.1.4 Takeoff and Landing Performance
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules

Thanks for the quote, and even though the 10k runway was not listed, my belief is unchanged...the stand alone "requirement" for MTOW is irrelevant to an aircrafts ability to meet the needs of a customer to carry a defined payload...if one can do so at below the acft's MTOW, what is the value of measuring MTOW at all?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:10 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
Mate, without being rude, I simply cannot begin to have a sensible debate with someone who is seriously putting forward the conversion of 50 year old KC-135Es to KC-135R standards as an alternative to buying new tankers. It's sheer lunacy, and it's just too hard to avoid appearing rude in dismissing such arrant nonsense.

Thanks for spending my taxpayer dollars for me, Jacko.

As a self-admitted "expert", you should be able to accept that aging military hardware is a fact of life.

Deal with it.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
Great as the -135 was in its day, these airframes are starting to show their age, support costs are spiralling, the aircraft is riddled with obsolescence issues, (numerous suppliers no longer exist), they no longer meet modern health and safety requirements and their continued airworthiness must be in doubt.

The USAF itself says the airframes are good till 2040. The -R is using CFM56s, just like zillions of 737s flying around. So you are saying that they are unsafe?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
And as if that were not enough, they are too small for modern post Cold War expeditionary missions, carrying too little fuel and being tied to very long runways, lacking the basing flexibility that the USAF wants. Yes the -135 can fly the missions it is now being tasked to do, but it is not being tasked to do missions that are beyond its capability (for obvious reasons) though such missions are what the USAF needs.

That's just one point of view, Jacko. During the Cold War, these aircraft refuelled B-52s flying racetrack patterns off the USSR coast, waiting for the go code. I'm glad you think that was such a trivial mission.

Fact is, a very good case can be made for re-engining KC-135Es to -R standard. I'd rather see my money go where it can do more good, at the pointy end of the stick.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18478
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 369):
The USAF itself says the airframes are good till 2040.

There's a big difference between the airframe being flyable until 2040 and the KC-135 being a viable tanker in whatever passes for airborne warfare in 30+ years time.
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.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:08 pm

Curt,

In the Cold War, the USAF needed lots of small tankers. The prime need was to send them (one tanker per bomber) to support B-52s, with a limited need to trail reinforcements across the North Atlantic. Relatively few assets would have relied on AAR to fulfil their war role.

Post Cold War, the expeditionary wings are flying intensive operations, requiring AAR all the time (and not just to get the training 'tick in the box'). Their operations are routinely carried out at much greater distances from base, and you are transferring more fuel to more receivers. ("No one kicks ass without tanker gas").

That's why KC-X did not call for a 707 or 737-sized tanker.

As to the KC-135 - estimates as to its remaining life are shrinking all the time. They are being flown more intensively, and more aircraft are being retired because they're beyond economic repair, spreading more hours over a shrinking fleet. And all the while, health and safety and 'duty of care' requirements become more arduous, and the cost of supporting ageing fleets increase exponentially.

And while you can 'Pacer Crag' the cockpit, and hang CFM56 engines under the wings, a KC-135 is still a 1950s jet, many of them having been hard used, and with an ever increasing number of original suppliers vanishing. Comparing a modernised -135 to a similarly powered 737 is of VERY limited use.

But more importantly, the KC-135 cannot do the job that today's USAF (and tomorrow's) need its tankers to do. That's why KC-X did not call for a 707 or 737-sized tanker.

And that's why the ability to lift large fuel loads from real world tanker runways is important (though MTOW in itself is, I'd agree, relatively unimportant).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:39 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 368):

Thanks for the quote, and even though the 10k runway was not listed, my belief is unchanged...the stand alone "requirement" for MTOW is irrelevant to an aircrafts ability to meet the needs of a customer to carry a defined payload...if one can do so at below the acft's MTOW, what is the value of measuring MTOW at all?

I get what you are saying, but I think they would have specified ability to takeoff from a 7,000' runway with a specific payload (e.g. 50,000 lb) if they wanted what you were saying. I think it is fairly clear that they were seeking maximum performance off 7,000' if they could get it, hence it was the "objective".

KPP #2 was for Fuel Offload and Radius Range for "maximum weight, not to exceed maximum takeoff gross weight, for 10,000 foot runway (critical field length)"
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:04 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
Mate, without being rude, I simply cannot begin to have a sensible debate with someone who is seriously putting forward the conversion of 50 year old KC-135Es to KC-135R standards as an alternative to buying new tankers. It's sheer lunacy, and it's just too hard to avoid appearing rude in dismissing such arrant nonsense.

I would suggest you go do a bit of research. There have been numerous studies within the past few years by the DOD as well as independent consulting firms that siad tanker modernization is a viable alternative. So before you go about being rude and boorish whilst you spend MY TAXPAYER money, I strongly suggest you look in to those reports. The money saved could be far better spent buying more F-22s, accelerating the JSF program, modernising F-15s, buying more C-17's, lengthening runways in the UK, or on the federal budget deficit. Take your pick. Those are all suggestions I made to my senators and congressman when I wrote them.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 367):
That's why Boeing didn't offer a 707 or 737-based tanker to meet the new requirement.

?????? 707 long out of production, 737 cannot offload the required amount of fuel, no room for growth.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 371):
As to the KC-135 - estimates as to its remaining life are shrinking all the time.

So maybe we buy KC-767s instead. they meet all objectives, acquisition costs are about the same, operating costs (see the price of jet fuel lately) are much less, significantly more of it is made in the US. A US based company will own the intellectual property for the airframe (don't discount the importance of that one), and the government does not assist a direct foreign competitor which receives subsidies from Europe.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 371):
In the Cold War, the USAF needed lots of small tankers.

So now they need fewer big tankers? Lets use 777s or 747s then.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 372):
I get what you are saying, but I think they would have specified ability to takeoff from a 7,000' runway with a specific payload (e.g. 50,000 lb) if they wanted what you were saying. I think it is fairly clear that they were seeking maximum performance off 7,000' if they could get it, hence it was the "objective".

Don't you think it's dangerous to get into the thinking behind what the objective was? We really don;t know what they where looking for when they made that an objective. Lets take it further, can the A330 take off from a 7,000' runway at MTOW?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:15 pm

Ah, so it is actually all about tired anti-European prejudice.

The KC-30 better meets all the USAF's objectives, acquisition costs are lower, through life support costs are lower, and you have a more capable, more useful tanker.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:17 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 373):
Lets take it further, can the A330 take off from a 7,000' runway at MTOW?

"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

from http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2007/issue_30.htm
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:28 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 371):
And while you can 'Pacer Crag' the cockpit, and hang CFM56 engines under the wings, a KC-135 is still a 1950s jet, many of them having been hard used, and with an ever increasing number of original suppliers vanishing.

Hard used? Aren't you the one talking about all those loooong runways these birds need to put down on? So are you saying USAF pilots can't land the plane correctly? What are you saying?

"Original suppliers disappearing" is a fact of life in every military program, sooner or later. Sure, costs increase, but it's still more costly to replace the old tanker than it is to re-engine the new ones.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 375):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

So you are saying there are a plethora of locations where 6,000 ft runways are available yet 7,000 ft runways are not? If so, how are airlines able to operate 767s world-wide?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:40 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 373):
and the government does not assist a direct foreign competitor which receives subsidies from Europe.

Sorry Alien, you can't use that one. Both sides of the pond subsidise their aviation industries, hence the 1992 Bi-Lateral agreement. Some are more overt than others, but a subsidy is a subsidy however it is dressed.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:53 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 374):
Ah, so it is actually all about tired anti-European prejudice.

The KC-30 better meets all the USAF's objectives, acquisition costs are lower, through life support costs are lower, and you have a more capable, more useful tanker.

then feel free and have the British AirForce Buy some...

I really dont care if the EuroTanker meets the USAF requirements. Its aquisition costs are not lower, the operating costs are not lower and I don't need to send my tax dollars overseas. I vote here, I pay taxes here and I will tell my congress critter whatever I want. Frankly, in this case, you opinion doesn't count for much. "More Capable and More Useful" are opinions not facts. Hold any opinion you like but its not relevant.

As I said, if you like A330MRTT... feel free to buy as many as you want.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:10 pm

No, that's not correct.

Feel free to bail out Boeing and buy the inferior tanker (though know that you're letting down your own servicemen and your allies in the process).

And don't try and pretend that you're doing anything else.

The USAF itself rated the KC-30 as superior in every category but risk (including cost) and "more capable and more useful" is not opinion - it's fact.

Carries more fuel, further, cheaper ($/lb transferred) and can do so from shorter runways (eg better basing flexibility, more available runways).

That's more capable.

Carries more personnel or more freight when supporting deployments.

That's more useful.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13480
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:23 pm

It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13480
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:13 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 380):

Same link, click on business and then aerospace Round 2 of Boeing Protest. Interesting about Sen. McCains involvement.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:25 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 375):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

Until you factor in pavement conditions. Since you are quoting EADS docs, I'll quote a Boeing doc:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/BoeingAFABrief.pdf

KC-30 can operate from only 389 airfields while the KC-767AT can operate from 840 when runway length, strength, and elevation are accounted for.

And operating KC-30's at KC-767 loads is hugely more expensive on fuel than the KC-767AT. It can be done, but there is no need to do so

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
We know that the 767 cannot take off at MTOW with 10,000 ft balanced field length. We know that the KC-30 can.

We know no such thing. Some can assume that the AT is not sufficiently different from the previous versions to change the performance (and that may be true), but we don't know for sure.

Zeke has quoted from the so-called product card and other locations on the Boeing website. I contend that information could very well be generic as evidenced by the way KC-767 is referenced in the Advanced product guide versus the way KC-767A is referenced in its respective guide.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 366):
Boeing states on their web site that they cannot takeoff from even 8,000' at MTOW, 7,000' was the objective, it has not met or exceeded that KPP objective.

Boeing states on their website that the KC-767AT met the 7,000' objective per AF assessment. I suggest it would be unwise, even suicide, for Boeing to base their protest, in part, on this capability if they couldn't back it up. As I've said before, stranger things have been known to happen...

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
Only Boeing is claiming that the 767 met the RFP, and only Boeing says that the Air Force agrees.

And the Air Force has said what in reply to Boeing's claim?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 360):
And even more vitally, which aircraft will give the USAF the best tanker, best suited to today's requirements?

Depends on how much the real cost of each actually turns out to be. Today the KC767 can use more airfields (840 to 389) than the KC-30. If NG/EADS factored in the cost of necessary improvements to reverse that, then they nailed it. If, however, the cost of improvements wasn't factored in, it needs to be, don't you think?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:40 pm

This 840 to 389 advantage is Boeing's claim.

It is contradicted by the Air Force.

It flies in the face of common sense.

The A330 needs a shorter balanced field length yet supposedly can use less than half as many airfields as the 767.

Sounds like utter bollocks (BS to our US readers) to me.

And to the USAF, who say:

that while the KC-767 can take off from 465 airfields worldwide launching with 200,000 lbs of fuel (2,000-lb short of its maximum fuel), the KC-30 can take off from 838 airfields with the same 200,000 lb fuel load.

[Edited 2008-03-19 16:01:46]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:56 pm

The KC-30 also has more cargo capability by a factor of almost two and can carry 40 more passengers. In addition, it is the KC-30 that can take off and land from shorter airfields. The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:22 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 374):
Ah, so it is actually all about tired anti-European prejudice.

No Jack, it's not that simple. I suggest you reread what I wrote. It's only anti-European prejudice if you believe that Europe has every right to protect it's economy and industry but the US does not. Sorry buddy, that was a cheap one. Try again.


Quoting Zeke (Reply 375):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

None of which was a requirement and I would challenge the more runways globally assertion since the A330 is almost 50 percent larger. Do all these runways have the facilities to handle such a large aircraft? It seems Boeing makes just the opposite argument when they claim their entry can operate out of more airfields.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 377):
Sorry Alien, you can't use that one. Both sides of the pond subsidise their aviation industries

I certainly can. Airbus is virtually a child of European governments. If it where not for your government Airbus would have been DOA. Airbus continues to receive launch aid subsidies. Boeing does not. The US is even so foolish as to ensure that military work is kept separate from civilian work and that savings or lessons learned from the military side cannot be applied to the civilian side of the business. Sure Washington state and others give tax breaks but they are available to any company doing business in the state. That does not happen with Airbus.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 378):
I really dont care if the EuroTanker meets the USAF requirements. Its aquisition costs are not lower, the operating costs are not lower and I don't need to send my tax dollars overseas. I vote here, I pay taxes here and I will tell my congress critter whatever I want. Frankly, in this case, you opinion doesn't count for much.

Very well said!

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 379):
Feel free to bail out Boeing and buy the inferior tanker (though know that you're letting down your own servicemen and your allies in the process).

Very insulting and condescending. You really are out of line.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13480
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:41 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 384):
The KC-30 also has more cargo capability by a factor of almost two and can carry 40 more passengers

The problem that I have is that the Air force put out a spec (According to what I have heard on the US news) for a certain size aircraft. Supposedly this size grew mysteriously and the airbus now fit the requirement and the 767 did not. We have a presidential cannidate up to his ears in this thing. I do not think that we should just say Oh well ! and shrug it off. Let us find out how the specs were changed, if they were. I think that is fair. It could change the dynamics of a presidential election here. It would certainly change my vote and possibly many others if politics played a part in the selection and cost the US such a high price.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:47 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 385):
I certainly can.

No sir, you most certainly cannot. The issue of subsidies/launch aid etc. is not as one dimensional as 'Airbus does, Boeing doesn't'. You seem to like that simpleton version as it fits your argument, but it is far from the truth. Subsidy does not just mean launch aid.

Both sides tacitly admit in the words of the 1992 Bi-Lateral agreement that 'assistance' in one form or another is given and this agreement was created to control the levels that could be given.

Who in the USA agreed that 'assistance' was given in the US? The Office of the US Trade Representative.

Who in the EU agreed that 'assistance' was given in the EU? The European Community.

So who's denying assistance/subsidy/launch aid is prevalent on both sides of the pond?

Apparently you are.

Quoting Alien (Reply 385):
Sure Washington state and others give tax breaks but they are available to any company doing business in the state.

Right.........And the other companies in Washington State that got $3.2bn are?

Subsidy

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.


Now just imagine if Washington State was a country.................In Europe..................No, lets not

[Edited 2008-03-19 20:51:13]
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:47 am



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
No sir, you most certainly cannot.

Yes sir, I certainly can, did and will continue to do so.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
You seem to like that simpleton version as it fits your argument

While mine my be "simpleton", yours sir is without merit. Love your oh so typical arrogant manner btw. I prefer "simpleton" to arrogant.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
Both sides tacitly admit in the words of the 1992 Bi-Lateral agreement that 'assistance' in one form or another is given and this agreement was created to control the levels that could be given.

No, it was meant to put a break on European subsidies to EADS. Nothing more. What do you say we subsidize orthrup Grumman in the development of large airliners by stipulating the next tanker should be built from the ground up rather than a derivative of an existing aircraft? Now that's a subsidiary.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
Right.........And the other companies in Washington State that got $3.2bn are?

Any time Airbus or any other company that makes commercial aircraft wants to build a plant in Washington they too would be eligble for tax breaks. It's a fact of life in the country. Tax incentives are given for everything from aircraft manufacture to florists. It's all about attracting business that employs workers. Now can Boeing get luanch aid from the UK? Did not think so.

Launch aid = subsidy

Oh, what about this one?

" A grant from the Welsh Assembly is to help create 650 jobs at Airbus's factory in north Wales where wings are made to meet the booming demand for the company's planes.

The pounds 5.2m Regional Selective Assistance grant will pay for training of the new employees and other costs of expansion at the plant in Broughton, which already employs about 6,000 workers. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060127/ai_n16040414

So, not only do you have launch aid you have direct subsidies. Not tax breaks, out right giving of money!!!! Shall I find more "grants"?

Now lets imagine, would Boeing get that money?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:12 pm

How could Boeing get such assistance?

Well awarding contracts to the company after it submitted the inferior, higher cost bid would be a start.

But no-one would ever let that happen.......
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:26 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
Right.........And the other companies in Washington State that got $3.2bn are?

Unfortunately, you are now over-simplifying as well. The large tax breaks Boeing received from WA were a response to much smaller tax breaks offered by AL for locating 787 production at BFM and were required to make keeping production in WA feasible. The AL tax breaks were then given to EADS as an incentive to locate the tanker production line at BFM. Over the past 15 years AL has been very aggressive about recruiting industry to the state with tax breaks, training incentives, infrastructure improvements, etc.

In fact, one of the few complaints we hear about this program is that too few US companies benefit. In fact, the only ones that come to mind immediately are Boeing for their rocket production plant in Decatur, National Railcar in Florence, and Northrop Grumman for the tanker conversion line. The other major beneficiaries are invariably European or Asian companies, i.e. Mercedes, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, Thyssen-Krupp, etc.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:47 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 382):
KC-30 can operate from only 389 airfields while the KC-767AT can operate from 840 when runway length, strength, and elevation are accounted for.

Strength and elevation were not specified by the customer as RFP criteria, Boeing is yet again trying to muddy the waters with criteria that was not in the RFP, i.e. not what the customer thinks is important.

I totally agree that the KC-767 has a lower ACN than the KC-30, but the tire pressure difference you are talking about is very small, i.e. 6 psi. The KC-767AT has the pavement characteristics virtually the same as the 767-300F, not the lighter 767-200ER, it shares the same wheels/gear/tires and weights as the 767-300F.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 382):
And operating KC-30's at KC-767 loads is hugely more expensive on fuel than the KC-767AT. It can be done, but there is no need to do so

More expensive yes, but mot "hugely more expensive", have a look at US DoT data for the cost of flying a 767-300ER or 767-300F (MTOW of 412,000 lb being the same weight MTOW as the KC-767AT) vs a A330-200 on the FAA register.

Please note all of Boeing's numbers are based upon their consultants report where they paid for a comparison between the 767-200ER to the A330-200, the 767-200ER is 17,000 lb lighter than the KC-767AT so the magnitude of the numbers presented is not valid.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 382):
Zeke has quoted from the so-called product card and other locations on the Boeing website. I contend that information could very well be generic as evidenced by the way KC-767 is referenced in the Advanced product guide versus the way KC-767A is referenced in its respective guide.

No I quoted all from the KC-X/KC-767AT product card/performance, not a generic KC-767.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/productCard.html
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html

Quoting Khobar (Reply 382):

Boeing states on their website that the KC-767AT met the 7,000' objective per AF assessment. I suggest it would be unwise, even suicide, for Boeing to base their protest, in part, on this capability if they couldn't back it up. As I've said before, stranger things have been known to happen..

I have not seen anywhere where Boeing claims the KC-767AT can takeoff in 7,000'. Even what Boeing has edited and released of their protest does not attempt to state the KC-767AT can takeoff from shorter runways than the KC-30. They used metrics which are not in the RFP.

Quoting Alien (Reply 385):

None of which was a requirement and I would challenge the more runways globally assertion since the A330 is almost 50 percent larger. Do all these runways have the facilities to handle such a large aircraft? It seems Boeing makes just the opposite argument when they claim their entry can operate out of more airfields.

7,000' was the threshold requirement, and MTOW off 7,000' was an objective requirement. Have you managed to read the SRD yet ?

Quoting Alien (Reply 388):

Any time Airbus or any other company that makes commercial aircraft wants to build a plant in Washington they too would be eligble for tax breaks. It's a fact of life in the country. Tax incentives are given for everything from aircraft manufacture to florists. It's all about attracting business that employs workers

Yes I remember seeing an article on those tax breaks, they cost the government millions, and only resulted in 200 jobs created. None of that money needs to be repaid, the government lost out on its taxes.

Quoting Alien (Reply 388):
Now can Boeing get luanch aid from the UK? Did not think so.

They seem to have no trouble getting 3 billion from the Japanese Government for the 787. None of that money needs to be repaid. Maybe they could get money from the UK, but maybe the UK wants the money repaid, so maybe it is not as attractive as what Japan was offering.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
art
Posts: 3222
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:11 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 359):
Boeing's website states, "The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)."



Quoting Zeke (Reply 362):
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.

If the 767 is not capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff it is crystal clear to me from the above that the 767 does not meet all objectives.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 368):
my belief is unchanged...the stand alone "requirement" for MTOW is irrelevant to an aircrafts ability to meet the needs of a customer to carry a defined payload...if one can do so at below the acft's MTOW, what is the value of measuring MTOW at all?

OK, you seem to be saying that the 7000' MTOW criterion was a mistake. Perhaps you are right. Unfortunately the USAF did not see it that way.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:24 pm



Quoting Art (Reply 392):
OK, you seem to be saying that the 7000' MTOW criterion was a mistake. Perhaps you are right. Unfortunately the USAF did not see it that way.

I don't know if what I said was "right"...just think it's silly to establish a requirement that was not grounded in an operational need.

We "need" to take off with a specified quantity of fuel/cargo, and we can also state a "need" to do so on runways of certain lengths...but to say we need to TO at max gross weight in "X" number of feet doesn't ground itself to an operational requirement, since it might be possible that an aircraft may be able to carry the specified payload off the 7000' runway but not yet be at it's MTOW.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:37 pm

Curt,

I see what you're saying, but this is semantics. In order to meet fuel offload requirements, with a fuel load of just 92 tonnes, it can be safely assumed that the KC-767 will often need to be at MTOW, so having an MTOW take off distance requirement is in effect the same as having a take off distance with required fuel requirement.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:41 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 388):
While mine my be "simpleton", yours sir is without merit. Love your oh so typical arrogant manner btw. I prefer "simpleton" to arrogant.

I did not state that you or your view was 'simpleton' , just that you seemed to like the simple 'Airbus does, Boeing dosen't' subsidy argument. I fail to see how you have perceived that as a personal attack on you, or a justification for personal attack.

Why is my post without merit? You have posted a position on the issue of subsidy and I pointed out that your own Government disagreed with you in the 1992 Bi-Lateral. I have referred to an agreement between two continents as opposed to your opinion, and I am without merit?

If you believe me to be arrogant, then so be it, however wrong you may be. At least you 'love' my manner.

Quoting Alien (Reply 388):
No, it was meant to put a break on European subsidies to EADS. Nothing more

Again, that is incorrect. It was a bi-lateral agreement. It was not just aimed at Europe or Airbus/EADS. You are shaping this issue to support your argument through a falsehood.

Quoting Alien (Reply 388):
So, not only do you have launch aid you have direct subsidies. Not tax breaks, out right giving of money!!!! Shall I find more "grants"?

Knock yourself out. Confirm to yourself that subsidy/assistance/tax-breaks are prevelant on both sides of the pond. It isn't news to me.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 390):
Unfortunately, you are now over-simplifying as well.

Yes I was. Subsidy in the aviation industry is not simple or clear cut. It is as political as almost any other arena and it is certainly not as simple as 'Airbus does, Boeing doesn't'.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:35 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 387):
No sir, you most certainly cannot. The issue of subsidies/launch aid etc. is not as one dimensional as 'Airbus does, Boeing doesn't'. You seem to like that simpleton version as it fits your argument, but it is far from the truth. Subsidy does not just mean launch aid.

Subsidy does not just mean launch aid, but Airbus does get launch aid, and Boeing does not. All other forms of subsidies are taken by both parties.

God, why cant the WTO just make their ruling already? They seem to be moving forward at the same tourtise-like pace of the Iraqi Parliament.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:31 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 396):
Subsidy does not just mean launch aid, but Airbus does get launch aid, and Boeing does not. All other forms of subsidies are taken by both parties.

Unfortunatly, some will argue the while it does not get RLI, it has received some $5bn in various forms for the 787. Now I am sure we could argue this issue till hell freezes over. And in all honesty I find the whole issue absurd. Contrary to some members opinion on this forum, I am not a supporter of subsidy in any form.

To say that any company who controls a roughly 50% of the civil aviation market still needs subsidy is absurd. The claim that it is needed to protect against development risk is ridiculous. Looking at both Boeing's and Airbus' model lines, does anybody see commercial failure anywhere? Of course not, because civil aircraft do not get built unless the market wants/needs them. To highlight, Boeing have managed to sell 800+ 787's and it hasn't left the ground yet.

Airbus is no longer an infant company. Noel Forgeard, ex-Airbus CEO, stated that Airbus could finance the A350 without launch aid. Then Airbus should bloody well do it then.

Boeing, though is not immune to similar charges. Which may explain why both the EU/US spent nine months trying to negotiate an agreement rather than going to the WTO after the 1992 deal was cancelled.

The WTO, the UN etc. are not known for their expediency. Iraqi Parliament is not a bad analogy.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:27 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 396):
God, why cant the WTO just make their ruling already?

Suspect the answer to that is in the question........  Smile

Regards
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3.

Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:39 am



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 397):
To say that any company who controls a roughly 50% of the civil aviation market still needs subsidy is absurd.

I agree with what you are saying, but I will also say that any such company will not willing let go of any subsidy it can get its hands on. I also hope the outcome of the WTO process is that there will be a great reduction of corporate welfare on both sides of the pond. From my keyboard to God's ears!
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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