Page 7 of 7

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:27 pm
by flipdewaf


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 299):
everyones standard of living is falling (normal people)

By normal people do you mean americans? My standard of living has gone up hugely over the last few years, am I not normal?

Fred

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:23 pm
by WarRI1


Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 300):
normal people do you mean americans? My standard of living has gone up hugely over the last few years, am I not normal?

Fred

A poor choice of words on my part, let us say lower to middle income folks in the US. I guess if things are going so well economically in Europe, a loss of the tanker contract to Boeing will hardly register over there.  Smile

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:57 pm
by Ken777
It will be interesting to see if the game has now changed:

"Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down."

"The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country"

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-AirForceShake-Up.html?hp

The hidden question is if pressure on Gates over the tanker decision was one of the factors that led to his decisions.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:21 pm
by redflyer


Quoting Ken777 (Reply 302):
The hidden question is if pressure on Gates over the tanker decision was one of the factors that led to his decisions.

I don't think the tanker decision played into the whacking of these top two USAF officials. However, I do think the loss of these two officials means that NG/EADS just lost a couple of their most powerful proponents and political voices. And, given the amount of politics involved in the tanker contract, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some dirt surface regarding the decision-making process that led to the tanker deal now that Wynne and Moseley are both gone.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:56 pm
by redflyer


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 303):
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some dirt surface regarding the decision-making process that led to the tanker deal now that Wynne and Moseley are both gone.

And to add to my above comment, this interesting piece of information:

Quote:
In another incident, the Pentagon inspector general found in April that a $50 million contract to promote the Thunderbirds aerial stunt team was tainted by improper influence and preferential treatment. No criminal conduct was found.

Moseley was not singled out for blame, but the investigation laid out a trail of communications from him and other Air Force leaders that eventually influenced the 2005 contract award. Included in that were friendly e-mails between Moseley and an executive in the company that won the bid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/...;_ylt=AmGgLjWPE8HPP4qzzN0ReJCs0NUE

Now, if Moseley's integrity was reproachable on a mere $50 million contract, I wonder how stalwart his integrity would have been on a $100 billion tanker contract?

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 pm
by scbriml


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 299):
I hope you are not advocating such a thing, sending jobs hither and yon.

I'm not advocating anything. In Airbus's specific case, the A320 FAL in China is producing planes over and above those assembled in France and Germany. All the major components sent to China for assembly are still produced by the same folks that build them for every other A320. Zero job loss.

Likewise, the A330s assembled in Mobile will be in addition to the main A330 production facility in Toulouse. Again, all the components produced for the Mobile A330s will be made by the same people making all the other A330 components (including all those US jobs supported directly and indirectly by the A330).

Like it or not, the global economy is a fact of capitalist life. If you don't want it, don't buy mass-produced cheap goods.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:34 pm
by TropicBird


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 304):
Now, if Moseley's integrity was reproachable on a mere $50 million contract, I wonder how stalwart his integrity would have been on a $100 billion tanker contract?

It appears this has already been asked of the GAO to consider.

"Top Air Force Officals Resign"

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:48 pm
by norcal


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 305):
All the major components sent to China for assembly are still produced by the same folks that build them for every other A320. Zero job loss.

Not true, if those airplanes were built in Europe, Airbus would have needed to hire more workers to build those extra planes. Instead they hired Chinese to build the new planes, that is a loss of (future) jobs.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 305):
Likewise, the A330s assembled in Mobile will be in addition to the main A330 production facility in Toulouse.

If they fully assembled in Toulouse then Airbus would have needed to hire more employees (more planes = more workers). Instead those jobs are now going to Mobile

So while in both cases no current employees in Europe will be fired, those potential jobs are lost overseas by moving the FALs.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:31 am
by scbriml


Quoting NorCal (Reply 307):
Not true, if those airplanes were built in Europe, Airbus would have needed to hire more workers to build those extra planes. Instead they hired Chinese to build the new planes, that is a loss of (future) jobs.

Well, you can't lose what you haven't got or can't have - the European production lines (for both A320 series and A330/340) will be running at maximum capacity. They cannot build any more plane each month.

The Chinese might not have ordered as many A320s if they weren't being built there, so the work to produce the parts to be assembled in China is extra work over and above what the European workers would have had if the Chinese hadn't ordered so many A320s.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 307):
If they fully assembled in Toulouse then Airbus would have needed to hire more employees (more planes = more workers). Instead those jobs are now going to Mobile

Again, exactly the same situation. Without the A330 line in Mobile, Airbus would not have sold those extra A330s. So again, the guys constructing A330 fuselages and wings will have more work than if there wasn't a plant in Mobile.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:57 pm
by halls120


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 304):
Quote:
In another incident, the Pentagon inspector general found in April that a $50 million contract to promote the Thunderbirds aerial stunt team was tainted by improper influence and preferential treatment. No criminal conduct was found.

Moseley was not singled out for blame, but the investigation laid out a trail of communications from him and other Air Force leaders that eventually influenced the 2005 contract award. Included in that were friendly e-mails between Moseley and an executive in the company that won the bid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/...;_ylt=AmGgLjWPE8HPP4qzzN0ReJCs0NUE

Now, if Moseley's integrity was reproachable on a mere $50 million contract, I wonder how stalwart his integrity would have been on a $100 billion tanker contract?

Now where are all those retired AF Generals on NG's payroll who were complaining about Boeing's protest being a slur on the good name of "their" Air Force......?  stirthepot 

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:42 pm
by WarRI1


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 305):
Like it or not, the global economy is a fact of capitalist life. If you don't want it, don't buy mass-produced cheap goods.

Trust me, nobody fought that battle more than I, this cheap junk from overseas, we set the wheels in motion and we have certainly paid with our standard of living, now you have the reason that I am a protectionist. that is why I do not want to see the tanker contract go to NG/EADS or anyone else, we have bled jobs for this global utopia and while there is something left to our defense industry, it should be kept here. As far as not buying mass produced cheap goods, it has almost become impossible here to do otherwise. Canada is not far behind us from what I have witnessed first hand.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:51 pm
by TristarAtLCA


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 310):
we set the wheels in motion and we have certainly paid with our standard of living, now you have the reason that I am a protectionist

The problem with the protectionist view for the US is that you have roughly 25% of the worlds wealth but only 2-3% of the customers. Global utopia it certainly isn't, but how would you maintain that wealth ratio when the door is shut?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 310):
and while there is something left to our defense industry,

Considering you have 5 of the top 6 defense manufacturers in the world, your defense industry is hardly on its last legs.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 310):
As far as not buying mass produced cheap goods, it has almost become impossible here to do otherwise.

And believe me, it is no different in the UK. Most things have a made in China/Thailand/Malaysia/Taiwan label, and this will be joined no doubt by India. The reason mass produced cheap goods flourish is we are a consumer people, where lower prices for one thing means more money left for others. Perfect? certainly not.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:20 am
by Alien


Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 311):
The problem with the protectionist view for the US is that you have roughly 25% of the worlds wealth but only 2-3% of the customers.

I think you may have that backward. We have about 25% of the worlds market in just about everything. The US is a huge market and while the US is either first or second in total exports the amount it imports is far greater. We close our markets simple arithmetic will tell you that the rest of the world has more to lose than we do.

That however is not really relevant. The US is by far the largest market for defense and again, we close our markets and it is our customers that suffer more. Take the JSF for example. The partner nations have put up a small fraction of the development costs. In return they are going to get a significant portion of the manufacturing for all JSFs produced.

What would happen if the US said, thanks but no thanks you partner nations are more trouble than you are worth here is your money go home. We lose the sale of maybe 300 or 400 planes but all of the manufacturing and all of the support and maintenance of the remaining 2000 or so planes stays here.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 311):
but how would you maintain that wealth ratio when the door is shut?

We really don't need the rest of the world. Leave the Middle East to Europe and Asia to the Japanese and Chinese. See how quick we start spending a lot less on the military.

Why should I pay to have Europeans build a plane that I really don't need if I where not defending Europe and Asia. I am sure that without those commitments we could reduce the current tanker fleet and modernize those that remain.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 311):
your defense industry is hardly on its last legs.

Perhpas, but why should I send my money offshore when I don't have to?

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 311):
Most things have a made in China/Thailand/Malaysia/Taiwan label, and this will be joined no doubt by India.

It is not an even playing field and our leaders need to wake up to that. They do not have comparable labor, environmental and business laws as the developed world does.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:01 pm
by flipdewaf


Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
We really don't need the rest of the world.

hmmmm, precious boeing tanker we shall have, NG steals it they did.

thanks, il be here all week  duck 

Fred

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:22 pm
by TristarAtLCA


Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
I think you may have that backward. We have about 25% of the worlds market in just about everything.

Unless you are 25% of the global population and only have 2-3% of its welath than I think I have it the right way round. I was talking about proportion of global wealth.

Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
We close our markets simple arithmetic will tell you that the rest of the world has more to lose than we do.

Maybe so, but it is never going to happen.

Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
We really don't need the rest of the world.

That is incredibly naive. Your position as global economic powerhouse is because of the rest of the world.

Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
Why should I pay to have Europeans build a plane that I really don't need if

Thats like saying why are you and I paying for a war we don't need or want? If you want that kind of control, run for congress.

Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
Perhpas, but why should I send my money offshore when I don't have to?

No, not perhaps, fact. The nonsense that this tanker deal is going to kill the US defence industry is becoming very tiresome as well as total BS.

Quoting Alien (Reply 312):
It is not an even playing field and our leaders need to wake up to that. They do not have comparable labor, environmental and business laws as the developed world does.

Of course your leaders are aware of it but they cant compete with $1 a day labour rates even if they were held to higher standards on the enviroment and business practice.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:55 am
by Alien


Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
Unless you are 25% of the global population and only have 2-3% of its welath than I think I have it the right way round. I was talking about proportion of global wealth.

No, wealth equals buying power. Either way it's a red herring. US is largest (by dollar amount) consumer market and defense market.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
Maybe so, but it is never going to happen.

Don't be so sure about that. I could easily see NAFTA being ended and the US acting to protect it's industries in the next congress. The democrats are no friend of "free" trade. They will demand fair trade or no trade.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
Your position as global economic powerhouse is because of the rest of the world.

Again, you have got that backwards. We are the worlds greatest source of wealth creation. We are also the worlds largest importer with a very large account deficit. That deficit is the delta between the benefits of import and the export. Further we spend untold trillions "defending" the rest of the world. That must stop and that money should be plowed back in to our economy. Why should we be in Europe, the ME or far east?

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
Why should I pay to have Europeans build a plane that I really don't need if

Thats like saying why are you and I paying for a war we don't need or want?

The two are not the same. One is policy and one is economic. I need not run for Congress to effect change all I need do is work to ensure the right people are elected. Europe is in for a really big surprise when the Democrats win in November. For instance, Obama is in no way supporting the EADS tanker.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
The nonsense that this tanker deal is going to kill the US defence industry

I don't know of anyone who said it would. What people are saying is why help out a competitor that receives what is in our view illegal subsidies when there is a perfectly good (and arguably superior) alternative. Simply put, why should my tax dollars support workers in Wales?

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 314):
Of course your leaders are aware of it but they cant compete with $1 a day labour rates even if they were held to higher standards on the enviroment and business practice.

That is of course the fatal flaw in the "free trade" argument. Assuming that there truly is (and there is not) free trade between nations how do you compete with workers making 1 dollar a day? Sorry, it is not worth having more stuff at the cost of ultimately ripping apart our ability to support ourselves. Europe is in the same position on this as we are except they have the luxury of having the state actually supporting and nurturing certain industries such as aerospace and defense. There is nothing wrong with that except when it comes at the expense of our defense industrial base as it has in this instance.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:11 am
by TristarAtLCA


Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
No, wealth equals buying power. Either way it's a red herring. US is largest (by dollar amount) consumer market and defense market.

Nothing you posted disputes what I wrote. You have posted three known facts.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Don't be so sure about that. I could easily see NAFTA

To be fair I have no idea what NAFTA does or doesn't do for your economy, so I really could not comment.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Again, you have got that backwards. We are the worlds greatest source of wealth creation. We are also the worlds largest importer with a very large account deficit.

You talk about your trade deficit as if it only happenned recently. You have consistently had a trade imbalance for over 30 years (bar one or two years). And of course you are the worlds greatest source of wealth, you are the biggest economy. The two are linked.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Further we spend untold trillions "defending" the rest of the world. That must stop and that money should be plowed back in to our economy. Why should we be in Europe, the ME or far east?

Thats a question for Americans to ask their leaders.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
The two are not the same. One is policy and one is economic.

And both have an impact on economics. 'No sorry, we have no money for education etc, we are too busy dropping bombs half a world away'.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
I don't know of anyone who said it would.

Alien, countless posts on this topic have displayed this type of rhetoric. Search the posts for numerous examples.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
What people are saying is why help out a competitor that receives what is in our view illegal subsidies

Oddly enough that what the EU says about the US. I will wait for the WTO as they are at least neutral.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
(and arguably superior) alternative

Arguable? most definently!

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Simply put, why should my tax dollars support workers in Wales?

Simply put, because thats where the wings are made.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Europe is in the same position on this as we are except they have the luxury of having the state actually supporting and nurturing certain industries such as aerospace and defense.

Defense and to an extent aerospace do not come under free trade criteria. Defence is probably the highest level of government control when it comes to trade.

Quoting Alien (Reply 315):
Sorry, it is not worth having more stuff at the cost of ultimately ripping apart our ability to support ourselves.

I understand your point, but as Walmart is yet again your biggest company (and I think I read they where the largest private company in the world) it is going to be incredibly difficult to change the consumer demand for lower prices.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:55 am
by Alien


Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
You talk about your trade deficit as if it only happenned recently.

As more "free trade" agreements and with the creation of the WTO those deficits have skyrocketed.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
Alien, countless posts on this topic have displayed this type of rhetoric.

No, the sentiment actually is that this is just another (albeit the largest to date) sell out by big business and the administration to make a buck at the expense of the middle class.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
Oddly enough that what the EU says about the US.

What the EU says is no concern to me.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
I will wait for the WTO as they are at least neutral.

I don;t think so and frankly the WTO is one of the root causes of the problem. The sooner the US leaves the WTO and negotiates bilateral trade agreements again the better.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
Arguable? most definently!

Sorry, but there is a whole bunch of data in the public domain that seems to indicate that the smaller tanker is more suitable for the USAF.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
Simply put, because thats where the wings are made.

Simply put, not if I buy the Boeing product they are not. I still get a tanker that meets or exceeds all requirements and is in many ways better than the A330 while employing 14,000 more Americans.

Quote:
think tank study came out saying a recent aerial refueling tanker contract that unexpectedly went to a partially foreign-owned rival of Boeing Co. will cost at least 14,000 U.S. jobs.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29719

Crains and the Economic Policy Institute are not exactly crackpot organizations.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 316):
Defense and to an extent aerospace do not come under free trade criteria

Exactly so and for good reason. Now tell me why the US should be held to a higher standard than Europe where this happens all the time. This has been the crux of the argument. It is not about the demise of our military industrial base. It's about choosing whats right for the USAF and what is right for the American economy.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:56 am
by deltal1011man


Quoting Ken777 (Reply 302):
"The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country"

Well thats just great to know......That will make me sleep better at night knowing some one could put the wrong bomb on the B52s.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:44 am
by TristarAtLCA


Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
No, the sentiment actually is that this is just another (albeit the largest to date) sell out by big business and the administration to make a buck at the expense of the middle class.

You have never denied that much of the tanker rhetoric has revolved around the 'not made here' stance. You are doing this in this post right now.

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
What the EU says is no concern to me.

Then don't enter into a debate on global issues if that is your position.

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
The sooner the US leaves the WTO and negotiates bilateral trade agreements again the better.

The WTO is the child of ITO and GATT which were American proposals and the US implemented the subsidy case in the WTO after withdrawing from a bilateral trade agreement, so what would you put into its place?


Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
Sorry, but there is a whole bunch of data in the public domain that seems to indicate that the smaller tanker is more suitable for the USAF.

Yet the customer disagrees with you.

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
Simply put, not if I buy the Boeing product they are not.

You asked why your tax dollars are supporting Welsh workers and I answered. Odd your not screaming about Japan building the 787 wings and box. Is it because that decision was made by a US company?

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
Now tell me why the US should be held to a higher standard than Europe where this happens all the time.

What higher standard are you talking about?

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
It's about choosing whats right for the USAF and what is right for the American economy.

You mean as long as its American made?

Quoting Alien (Reply 318):
Crains and the Economic Policy Institute are not exactly crackpot organizations.

You are linking to a report which lists Boeing and Unions as funders of the EPI? I find it strange that Boeing is going to support twice as many jobs with the same contract value.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:37 am
by Venus6971


Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 319):
You mean as long as its American made?

I remeber back in the 80's the soul searching parliment went through when they relized they could no longer sink pounds in the Nimrod AWACS they could not get to work unless alot more pounds were spent even then it was no guarantee with the up and running and fielded US Boeing E-3A.available. Now to my point, we go with foreign made products when they are vastly superior than what is offered by an American product. Point, the US ARmy Lakota, numerous artillary pieces the new Marine One, the C-27, T-45,AV-8A, USCG Dauphins and Falcons. The Airbus 330 is just bigger than the 767, plus with current senior leadership out on its butt with more heads to follow this deal does not pass the smell test espicially with some out going Generals on the NG payroll. Plus what to fighter pilots know about heavys, they saw that F-16 style control stick and Airbus had them at hello.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:35 pm
by gsosbee


Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 320):
does not pass the smell test espicially with some out going Generals on the NG payroll

A similar number went/will go onto Boeing's payroll. Just the way the system works.

One final time. The only issue that Boeing has is if it can be proven that someone in the Air Force told them not to offer the 777 (assuming the 777 could meet the minimums.) Absent this, the contract will stay with NG.

Whether Congress will fund the NG airplane is a completely different question as Congress will care less about performance and suitability for the job.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:13 pm
by TropicBird


Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 321):
One final time. The only issue that Boeing has is if it can be proven that someone in the Air Force told them not to offer the 777 (assuming the 777 could meet the minimums.) Absent this, the contract will stay with NG.

Boeing was clear that they were discouraged from offering the large 777. Boeing also seems to have used that same information in refusing to provide the NAKOA folks the information they needed for the 747-8.

Boeing knows who in the USAF gave them those indications (as does the USAF). Will this be divulged by the GAO is the question. The fact that Boeing would admit to receiving this information from the USAF is amazing because in doing so they appear to have admitted to a probable violation of procurement regulations. This is similar to what got them in trouble in the tanker scandal. That is probably why Boeing has now downplayed the size issue in the award but they already let the cat out of the bag. They cannot take it back.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:10 pm
by scbriml


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 322):
Boeing was clear that they were discouraged from offering the large 777.

The key word there is "was". Their view seems to have changed significantly from "The AF told us not to bid the KC-777" to "The AF SEEMED to favour a medium tanker".
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
After months of complaining to everyone who would listen (and to many of those who wouldn't, apparently), Boeing softened its approach to this. In a May 22 press release, Boeing claimed the Air Force only "seemed" to favor a medium sized tanker:

"The Air Force Request for Proposals seemed to call for a medium-sized tanker designed to meet the unique needs of today's expeditionary Air Force."

The same article also makes it clear that everyone understood the KC-767 and KC-30 were considered "medium" tankers, while the KC-777 was considered a "large" tanker.

Of course, what Boeing offered was, realistically, the only thing they could. A KC-777 tanker, by their own admission, could not be ready for at least three years (too late to meet the AF's requirements). In addition, offering a tanker based on the 767 also had a nice side-benefit of keeping open a production line that was getting very close to being shut down.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:10 pm
by EPA001


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 323):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 322):
Boeing was clear that they were discouraged from offering the large 777.

The key word there is "was". Their view seems to have changed significantly from "The AF told us not to bid the KC-777" to "The AF SEEMED to favour a medium tanker".
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
After months of complaining to everyone who would listen (and to many of those who wouldn't, apparently), Boeing softened its approach to this. In a May 22 press release, Boeing claimed the Air Force only "seemed" to favor a medium sized tanker:

"The Air Force Request for Proposals seemed to call for a medium-sized tanker designed to meet the unique needs of today's expeditionary Air Force."

The same article also makes it clear that everyone understood the KC-767 and KC-30 were considered "medium" tankers, while the KC-777 was considered a "large" tanker.

Of course, what Boeing offered was, realistically, the only thing they could. A KC-777 tanker, by their own admission, could not be ready for at least three years (too late to meet the AF's requirements). In addition, offering a tanker based on the 767 also had a nice side-benefit of keeping open a production line that was getting very close to being shut down.

When all the discussions about the USAF awarding the initial contract to NG-EADS this topic was made one of the biggest arguments the Boeing supporters could come up with. It is very strange that I did not "hear" the same people here on A-net that even Boeing is now acknowledging that this was not really the case. Even though it was also a big part of their pitiful media campaign against the USAF. That party, their possible customer (!) was accused of unfair practices.

But in the end it comes down to the situation which was stated and repeated by many not so biased A-net members. And Scbriml is the last one in this post to summarize it. The BC-777 was too far away and would not have met all the requirements as were stated in THIS rfp, incluing the minimum time for it to be available to the USAF.

So the B767-AT, heavily modified from the Japanese version of it, and again modified from the Italian version of it, was put in contention as a "Frankentanker" concept. Which made this concept as a whole an unproven airframe. This concept lost out against the clearly superior KC-45. Again superior according to the requirements drawn up in THIS rfp.

And the USAF remembered very well the big problems and delays Boeing had suffered on delivering the much less modified Japanese and Italian tankers to these Air Forces. Which probably made them suspicious about the in-time availability of this concept plane of which some parts are still on the designers table.

The A330-MRTT on the other hand is flying, and modifications for it to become a KC-45 are rather minor, especially compared to the B767-AT. And has won the last 5 out of 5 bids worldwide for a tanker aircraft. And is as a platform more advanced (especially materials, wings and fly by wire) than the KC-767. It is not really a miracle that the USAF chose the best product for the job. They are even obliged to if they really want what is best for their operations and the troops they are serving.

Although in percentages it is a bit less "American made" (there is only a marginal difference) this was not a consideration of the rfp. And since the foreign parts come from friends of the US, they were to be judged as equally American as the Boeing offering, which also has a significant part which is not US made, although that part is a bit smaller then in the NG-EADS bid.

The GAO will most likely confirm the USAF decision. Also Lockheed-Martin recently stated that the USAF selected correctly. They did so on procedures and on the final product they proclaimed to be the best product for the tasks described in the rfp. You can hardly argue about that I believe although the number of posts in the several threads clearly suggests otherwise.

Kind regards.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:26 am
by XT6Wagon


Quoting EPA001 (Reply 324):
The A330-MRTT on the other hand is flying

Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is merly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than the KC767's that are fully certified and delivered to the customer.

er.... right. whatever.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:25 am
by EPA001


Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 325):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 324):
The A330-MRTT on the other hand is flying

Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is mearly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than the KC767's that are fully certified and delivered to the customer.

er.... right. whatever.

And I do not know how many times it has been pointed out here that the severely modified B767-AT is not even completely designed yet. Parts of it are still on the designers tables. The B767 tankers that are flying, after being delivered years later then planned to the Japanese and Italian Air forces which costed Boeing heavy penalty payments, are so much different from the proposed B767-AT. They can hardly be compared. The different versions of the A330-MRTT (KC-30, KC-45) are as an airframe practically identical. And these airframes are flying as you state correctly. The B767-AT will, if she will ever fly, fly at the earliest in 2010.

The B767-AT is therefore much and much further away from flying in that unproven combination of parts from several versions of the B767 including the redesign work for the B767-AT.
So when it is much further away from really flying, it will even be much and much further away from certification. The certification you are referring to is certainly not applicable for the proposed B676-AT for the USAF.

er.......right. Whatever you want to believe.....

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:11 am
by gsosbee


Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 325):
Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is merly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than the KC767's that are fully certified and delivered to the customer.

Come on XT6Wagon, the 767 based tanker that Boeing proposed is not even off the drawing board, much less flying. I would have preferred a Boeing product, but at some point we all have to let go and accept the fact that the Air Force probably did choose the best platform available. Remember the end game is to get new airplanes in the air ASAP, not to protect jobs at Boeing.

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:01 am
by WINGS


Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 325):

Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is merly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than the KC767's that are fully certified and delivered to the customer.

er.... right. whatever.

What on earth are you talking about? Airbus has actually been testing and demonstrating the maturity of the A330 MRTT (RAAF) and the BOOM system (A313).

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/program_update.html



The Royal Australian Air Force A330 MRTT's hose and drogue demonstrates "rock solid" stability as the F/A-18 makes an operational-type approach.



The Aerial Refueling Boom system's contacts with an F-16 receiver aircraft were made at 27,000 feet, and reflected a typical refueling mission.





Regards,
Wings

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:05 am
by PanAm_DC10
With over 300 replies please continue at Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II thank you