astuteman
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:36 am



Quoting M27 (Reply 37):
As for Airbus being the more honorable company; they would never protest would they?-

Almost certainly not. They aren't one of the bidders.......  Smile

Regards
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:16 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The KC-767AT is not a "less capable product". Both were graded against the RFP (supposely fairly). There were no extra points awarded for exceeding any KC-135R capability, which is what the RFP stated as fuel load, off load, range, and cargo capability.

BTW, that is also why a reengined KC-135E was also considered. It met all the RFP requirements.


If this were all so, then why wouldn't the re-engined KC-135E have won the competition? It meets the KC-135R requirement exactly, and would be the lowest cost and the lowest risk.

In a nut shell answer, the USAF was not interested in reengineing the KC-135E.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
Besides, the KC767 didn't fully meet the requirements as some keep on mentioning ad infinitum: it can't take off from a 7,000ft runway at MTOW under all of the meteorological conditions required by the USAF. It is definitely not a good idea to have a fleet of tankers which are seriously payload limited on many of the fields they are supposed to be used on and the USAF seems to think the same!

The bottom line is that the A330 came out first on EACH of the FIVE overal criteria the USAF used to combine all evaluations into, whereas the KC767 managed to beat the KC30 ZERO times! I'd say that is proof of a greatly inferior product.

It shouldn't come as a surprise really as the USAF in depth analysis of both frames merely confirms what the commercial airlines have concluded a decade ago already: the 767 is no match for the A330!

What works for airlines is not a consideration, as the airlines and USAF do different things. People here say the KC-767AT cannot take off on a 7000' Rwy. The USAF never said this, so apparently the KC-767AT, at 412,000lbs MTOW, with PW-4062A engines (63,300lbs thrust each), and the B-767-300ERF wing can take off under these requirements. The KC-30A, with its longer witng, at 513,000lbs MTOW, and CF-6-80E1A4B engines (72,000lbs thrust each) can also do it. I might add that both tankers have advanced lift devices.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 27):
Because the KC-767AT is based on a yet-to-be-built 767 Airfix kit of components from three different 767 versions. Never been built. The A330MRTT is flying today and the boom has now passed fuel.

Neither the KC-30B, A-330MRTT A-330TT, KC-767A, or KC-767J are the airplanes the USAF wants to order. Some are close enough to be considered as prototypes, but not the actual final configueration the USAF wants.

So the KC-45A (KC-30A) and the KC-767AT have yet to be built or flown.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 27):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The USAF cannot consider the contract performance of any airline or other country these competitors may have had.

Then why is Boeing even mentioning it?

Because the USAF mentioned it.

Quoting CYQL (Reply 41):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
At the moment of the contract announcement, the KC-30 and KC-767AT were equilly rtisky programs.

How can the KC-30 be as risky as the KC-767AT, when the first A330's to be converted are already flying while the KC-767 is on a piece of paper.

The first KC-767s to be converted are also flying (actually there are more KC-767s flying today than KC-30s, or A-330MRTTs). There are several A-330s flying around that will eventually be converted into tankers, but they are not there, yet.

At the moment, both the KC-45A and the KC-767AT are paper airplanes. The completed A-330 that has been stored for the USAF is in a passenger airliner configueration, not a tanker.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting 7cubed (Reply 18):
Whining, as in saying you're going to drop out of the competition if the specifications aren't changed to favor your product?

This is a somewhat skewed point Boeing is used in the press, from the point the draft RFP went out, it was not changed to better suit the KC-30. The only real changed the USAF made was to their model which they changed previously to suit the KC-767 lease deal. The changes effectively allowed the KC-767AT/KC-30 to compete under the new RFP.

The only real cjhanges from the RFP draft to the relaesed document was minor wording changes. Then NG bitched that their airplane would not get a fair consideration, and threatened to withdraw from the KC-X compitition. So the USAF drew up this new 5th catagory, that favored the KC-30, from the start. So, Boeing, instead of going to a B-767-300ERF airplane, offered a new airplane called the B-767-200LRF, and proved their airplane met all the RFP requirements, and was much more economical to operate.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
BTW, that is also why a reengined KC-135E was also considered. It met all the RFP requirements.

That is not correct, a CFM56 upgrade to the KC-135 falls behind on the multi point refelling front and runway performance.

So why does the USAF currently have 55 KC-135R/Ts flying with WARPS today? A reengined KC-135E does meet the RFPs. But if the USAF chose them there would be questions of why they simply didn't re-engine them before (when it was cheaper per airplane).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Since the KC-30 is not in service yet, or flying as a completed tanker, why is the KC-767AT riskier?

As you know, the KC-30 is flying as a complete tanker, has been for some time. It completed its civil flight testing certification in Jan.

I believe the RAAF currently has 2 KC-30Bs flying, a third airplane is currently being modified. But, the KC-30 has not refueled with the Boom, yet. The only Boom testing going on right now (with EADS) is aboard the KC-310 test bed airplane.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):

Yes, they did say that, then used USAF cost numbers based on the KC-135, and not airliner costs based on 10 million flying hours of the B-767 and A-330 airliners.

The 767 numbers Boeing were using were for the 767-200ER, that frame is 17,000 lb to 77,000 lb lighter (767-200ER MTOW varies between 335,000lb to 395,000 lb) than the KC-767AT (412,000 lb same as 767-300ER/766-300F), that is 17,000-77,000 lbs of unaccounted fuel burn that Boeing does not want to publish.

The B-767-200ER weighs 395,000lbs, and you know that, there is no "-200ER" version that weighs less than that. Boeing said that in their comparison. So the difference is 17,000lbs, period.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Boeing's comparison also used the 507,000lb MTOW for the A-330-200 airplane they com[pared too, not the 513,000lbs the KC-30A would weigh.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a330-200/specifications.html

The undisputable results is the A-330-200 airliner burns 9% more fuel on same lenght missions trhan the B-767-200ER airliner. Boeing did mention both were airliner configuerations, not tankers.




Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
We have been over this before. The USAF cannot consider the contract performance of any airline or other country these competitors may have had. So USAF cannot consider the performance of the Italian, Japanese, or Australian tanker programs (although now it appears they did talk to the RAAF about the KC-30 program, and used those considerations, possibly violating US laws).

They have, they did meet with Australia, an Australia stated they were very happy with the KC-30 development. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...80124

Then someone in the USAF needs to go to jail. What the Aussies think of their new tanker, or the Japanese think of theirs is irrelevent.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
At the moment of the contract announcement, the KC-30 and KC-767AT were equilly rtisky programs.

The KC-767T has never been built

Neither has the KC-45.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
note the USAF has asked the GAO to dismiss the Boeing petition, we should hear about that within the next 80-90 days. By that time all 4 A330 SDD frames will be complete, and conversion can commence immediately, the USAF will have all 4 SDD by 2010, Boeing cannot even guarantee completing one frame this year.

80-90 days might be a good guess as to when the GAO completes their investigation, it could take longer.. That will change the governments timetable of the SDDs and final configueration tankers. But, I am courious as to why you think Boeing cannot complete 4 SDD airplanes from when the new clock starts to what ever the end time is (2010-2011?). How do you know what Boeing can guarantee?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
From what I have heard it has been US$82,000 PER day the KC-767 was late for Japan, and over two years late (?)

Source?

365 X 2 = 730 X 82000 = $59,860,000

You said over two years, I just used the total number of days for only two years (no leap year in my computations).

So Boeing gave away half a KC-767J (assuming the KC-767J is $120M in 2003 dollars, and the fines were just under $60M)?

Can Boeing afford to give away .5 KC-767s out of 8 (total) airframes to each country (Japan and Italy)?

So how many pallets will the KC-45A be able to carry on the main cargo deck? 26? 32? How many passengers? 226? 280?

CARGO

The main deck can carry 280 passengers or 26 463l pallets. Loading and unloading is through a 141in x 100in cargo door.

From Zeke's source.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/

Payloads

Passengers/Troops 226

Pallets
Up to 32 463L pallets


http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/specifications.html

Not only is Boeing confused about the capabilities of the KC-45 (KC-30, A-330MRTT) apparently NG is, too.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14776
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:49 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
The only real cjhanges from the RFP draft to the relaesed document was minor wording changes. Then NG bitched that their airplane would not get a fair consideration, and threatened to withdraw from the KC-X compitition. So the USAF drew up this new 5th catagory, that favored the KC-30, from the start. So, Boeing, instead of going to a B-767-300ERF airplane, offered a new airplane called the B-767-200LRF, and proved their airplane met all the RFP requirements, and was much more economical to operate.

That is not true, I have previously listed in another thread ( Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3. (by WINGS Mar 4 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) reply 206) all the RFP changed since the first draft was released, factor 5 was always in every draft version.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):

So why does the USAF currently have 55 KC-135R/Ts flying with WARPS today? A reengined KC-135E does meet the RFPs. But if the USAF chose them there would be questions of why they simply didn't re-engine them before (when it was cheaper per airplane).

They dont as far as I know, they only have about 30 sets of pods, but more aircraft that that fitted with the plumbing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
I believe the RAAF currently has 2 KC-30Bs flying, a third airplane is currently being modified. But, the KC-30 has not refueled with the Boom, yet. The only Boom testing going on right now (with EADS) is aboard the KC-310 test bed airplane.

I think it has passed fuel on the ground, it is not expected to have passed fuel yet, that cycle of the flight test program has not been done. Have a look at how late in the KC-767A flight test program it was before fuel was passed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
The B-767-200ER weighs 395,000lbs, and you know that, there is no "-200ER" version that weighs less than that. Boeing said that in their comparison. So the difference is 17,000lbs, period.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

That is not true.have a look at table 2.1.2 in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf

The 767-200ER MTOW options are

335,000 lb
345,000 lb
351,000 lb
380,000 lb
387,000 lb
395,000 lb

and the KC-767AT is 412,000 lb.

So between 17,000 and 77,000 lb lighter as I correctly stated before. If they are going to make a comparison, it should be on the 767-300ER/767-300F that has the 412,000 lb MTOW.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):

Boeing's comparison also used the 507,000lb MTOW for the A-330-200 airplane they com[pared too, not the 513,000lbs the KC-30A would weigh.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam....html

That again is not true, the Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information report that Boeing is basing its numbers on used an A330-202 with a MTOW of 513,765 lb

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Then someone in the USAF needs to go to jail. What the Aussies think of their new tanker, or the Japanese think of theirs is irrelevent.

It is very relevant, again this is you trying to tell the customer that you know better than they do.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
But, I am courious as to why you think Boeing cannot complete 4 SDD airplanes from when the new clock starts to what ever the end time is (2010-2011?). How do you know what Boeing can guarantee?

The design is not complete. The new boom has never been designed/built, no metal has been cut. It took Boeing a very very very long time Japanese tanker designed, tested, and delivered.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Source?

I will try and find a public version for you, the number was only for Japan, I do not know what they are paying Italy.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
So Boeing gave away half a KC-767J (assuming the KC-767J is $120M in 2003 dollars, and the fines were just under $60M)?

Can Boeing afford to give away .5 KC-767s out of 8 (total) airframes to each country (Japan and Italy)?

Why not ? they have paid Australia over 500 million for the late wedgetail, that is a 5 aircraft modified 737 program.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
How many passengers? 226? 280?

The maximum number of passengers approved for certified for the A330-200 is 375 (when 3 Type A and 1 Type 1 doors installed) and 406 when 4 Type A doors installed (Mod. 40161).

The numbers being quoted I assume refer to a configuration where quick change seats are placed on pallets, same with aeromedical, it is a quick change configuration.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Not only is Boeing confused about the capabilities of the KC-45 (KC-30, A-330MRTT) apparently NG is, too.

NG/EADS are not confused, the KC-30 can carry pallets on the main deck AND under floor. The KC-767AT cannot. Read the quotes you gave, one refers to total capacity, one refers to main deck, both are correct.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:44 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
They dont as far as I know, they only have about 30 sets of pods, but more aircraft that that fitted with the plumbing.

According to my friends at TIK, a KC-135 depot, there have been 55 KC-135s modified with the new outerwing panels (lower surface), vent tank and plumbing modification, and fuel manifold modification and electrical work (these mods sound more complicated than they really are, it takes approx 3 days (8 hour days) with 12 people,288 man hours, to complete this work). There are another 14 KC-135s budgeted to receive the modifications this FY. You may be correct on the number of WARP kits (the pods are the same as the KC-10, but the struts are different)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
The design is not complete. The new boom has never been designed/built, no metal has been cut. It took Boeing a very very very long time Japanese tanker designed, tested, and delivered.

Since some of the design work is taken directly from the KC-767A/J, a lot of work is already done. Other design work, and metal cutting will take time. From what I understand of the Gen-VI Boom, it also shares some of the Gen-V Boom technology and components. I'm not sure what that leaves to bring it to the next generation (Boeing is pretty quite about that). But, Boeing Booms have already been FBW, since the MD designed Boom on the KC-10 (and that had a lot of growing pains that took several years to work out).

Boeing already has established and climbed a learning curve (as EADS has, but not NG) with building the KC-767 (or KC-30).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
That again is not true, the Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information report that Boeing is basing its numbers on used an A330-202 with a MTOW of 513,765 lb

I'll go back to look at my copy tonight. I know I read somewhere in there the MTOW of the A-330-200 was 507K.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
Why not ? they have paid Australia over 500 million for the late wedgetail, that is a 5 aircraft modified 737 program.

Now, I will agree Boeing has paid therough the nose with the Wedgetail airplanes. That is a very complicated weapons system, even more so than the E-3 AWACS, because the radar antenna has no moving parts.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
The maximum number of passengers approved for certified for the A330-200 is 375 (when 3 Type A and 1 Type 1 doors installed) and 406 when 4 Type A doors installed (Mod. 40161).

I will defer that to you as you are much more familuar with the A-330/A-340 fuselage than I am. No, I don't really know how many passenger doors the KC-45 will have.

The numbers being quoted I assume refer to a configuration where quick change seats are placed on pallets, same with aeromedical, it is a quick change configuration.

That is the way the USAF, and other AFs are going, palletized seats and aero-meds are quick and easy. Griund storage is a problem, but they will have to solve that seperately. The KC-767 would have been the same. The C-17 already does this and kits are being developed for the KC-10 and KC-135. IIRC, a few years ago, the USAF developed an AERO-MED evac kit for the US Airways B-767-200ERs (no cargo door). As far as I know, it was only installed once, for tresting

Quoting Zeke (Reply 52):
NG/EADS are not confused, the KC-30 can carry pallets on the main deck AND under floor. The KC-767AT cannot. Read the quotes you gave, one refers to total capacity, one refers to main deck, both are correct.

Me bad. You are right. RTFQ. I didn't read the whole thing.

BTW, the KC-767AT would not have a lower deck, what was a cargo hold on airliners is filled with fuel tanks (we call them body tanks, forward and aft). That is how we carried most about 70,000lbs of fuel in the KC-135 (an additional upper deck tank aft of the Boom Pod carried another 15,000lbs and gravity drained (only) into the aft body tank). The remaining 117,000lbs of fuel was in four main wing tanks, two reserve tanks, and a huge center wing tank. Total fuel capacity is 202,000lbs.

With a max fuel load, and no refueling, the range is global (over 12,500nm), and still have about 2 hours of fuel remaining to divert. The USAF lists the ranges at 1500nm-9000nm.

I would not recommend flying for that long. My personnal longest mission was 20.8 hours long, in a KC-135E (two crews aboard), but that is a very long tome to spend in an airplane.

The KC-10 is simular, but no upper deck tank. He can carry about 365,000lbs of fuel, total. IIRC, the KC-10 does not have the range a KC-135 has, because of the first several hours of very high fuel burn.
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:18 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
would not recommend flying for that long. My personnal longest mission was 20.8 hours long, in a KC-135E (two crews aboard), but that is a very long tome to spend in an airplane.

Operation Noble Eagle lasted more than 22 hours in a E-3, the limiting factor was the one lavatory and how much it could hold.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
So why does the USAF currently have 55 KC-135R/Ts flying with WARPS today? A reengined KC-135E does meet the RFPs. But if the USAF chose them there would be questions of why they simply didn't re-engine them before (when it was cheaper per airplane).

Never knew why they took the EC-135 fleet and send them to AMARC, they were all Aeriel refuelable capable, if the cold war was still going they probably would have been reengined like the Rivet Joints. I knew the 4 they kept in EGUN were in sorry shape because of the corrision issues but they would have better suited for the missions the R/Ts fly now.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:27 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 54):
Never knew why they took the EC-135 fleet and send them to AMARC, they were all Aeriel refuelable capable, if the cold war was still going they probably would have been reengined like the Rivet Joints.

The EC-135Cs have a lot of hours on them from the Looking Glass missions. IIRC, most of their CCC stuff ended up installed in the E-4s and E-6s. They will, mostly be the first to get scrapped, after it is determined they are not needed for parts to support the rest of the C/KC/RC-135 fleet.

The EC-135H/Js will most likely stay in flyable storage for another 15+ years, then replace the EC-135Cs as parts hulks and the "C" models get scrapped. The same goes for the KC-135As and the KC-135Es (although a few KC-135As have already had things like cockpits cut off, etc.).
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18518
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
80-90 days might be a good guess as to when the GAO completes their investigation, it could take longer..

Boeing filed its protest on 11th March and the GAO has to make its decision known within 100 days. So the latest we'll know is 19th June (i.e within 82 days from today)
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.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14776
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:30 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
There are another 14 KC-135s budgeted to receive the modifications this FY. You may be correct on the number of WARP kits (the pods are the same as the KC-10, but the struts are different)

I don't think they are too keen to have the kits always installed, AFAIK it costs them 20,000 lb of fuel carriage (180,000 lb max) and decreases their fatigue life.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Since some of the design work is taken directly from the KC-767A/J, a lot of work is already done

A lot of the problems Boeing has had to date come form the wing pods, and the modifications they required to the pods and the wing. The KC-767AT is changing this, using the 767-300 wing and gear, and a higher MTOW, this will change the loads. The other major difference is the cockpit, the KC-767 has a conventional 767-200 cockpit, the KC-767At has the 767-400 cockpit which will be a first as far as I am aware to the 767-200 series.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Boeing already has established and climbed a learning curve (as EADS has, but not NG) with building the KC-767 (or KC-30).

It seems to be a common from some points on the globe that EADS has never produced a tanker.. They already have A310 & Tornado (similar capability as the F/A18 buddy pack) based tankers operational, and have installed the boom on the A310 and A330 frames. The A310 has passed fuel from its boom.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Now, I will agree Boeing has paid therough the nose with the Wedgetail airplanes. That is a very complicated weapons system, even more so than the E-3 AWACS, because the radar antenna has no moving parts.

A number of AEW&C aircraft are flying, you can pick them up from half a dozen different manufacturers, even Boeing has more than one platform that does that role, I fail to see what is "very complicated" about it. In terms of being a "weapons system", as fair as I am aware, the aircraft will not carry any weapons.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14776
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:56 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
From what I have heard it has been US$82,000 PER day the KC-767 was late for Japan, and over two years late (?)

Source?

Found it ...

from http://blog.al.com/live/2007/05/delivery_of_boeings_japanese_t.html

"Meanwhile, the tanker sits in limbo at Boeing's aircraft modification center in Wichita, Kan. Japan reportedly is imposing a fine of 10 million yen -- about $82,000 -- for each day the plane is late."
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:28 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 58):
Found it ...

from http://blog.al.com/live/2007/05/delivery_of_boeings_japanese_t.html

"Meanwhile, the tanker sits in limbo at Boeing's aircraft modification center in Wichita, Kan. Japan reportedly is imposing a fine of 10 million yen -- about $82,000 -- for each day the plane is late."

Thanks Zeke for finding the source to this. Although I highly doubt that the die-hard B-fans will accept what the article says. We have seen too many B-fans around here just not believing clear and also for them verifiable facts. Many of these facts you stated yourself, and you know which A-netters keep twisting around the truth about lots of these facts! That makes the discussion on merits very hard, but still we keep on trying!
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:48 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 57):
A number of AEW&C aircraft are flying, you can pick them up from half a dozen different manufacturers, even Boeing has more than one platform that does that role, I fail to see what is "very complicated" about it. In terms of being a "weapons system", as fair as I am aware, the aircraft will not carry any weapons.

As being an E-3 Crew Chief for 13 years I find this statement extremely uninformed at best. BAE tryed in vane to get a working AEW system working back in the 80's henece the RAF now has "Boeing"E-3D's.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14776
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:11 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 60):

As being an E-3 Crew Chief for 13 years I find this statement extremely uninformed at best. BAE tryed in vane to get a working AEW system working back in the 80's henece the RAF now has "Boeing"E-3D's.

Boeing have the "707", "737", "767" platforms for their equipment, Embraer the ERJ 145 airframe, Saab the Saab 340 and 2000, Gulfstream the 550, IL-76, and NG E-2/E-2D.

Where was I "uninformed at best", the Embraer, Saab, Gulfstream, and NG E-2D aircraft all are being developed at much the same time as the converted 737NG.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:49 am

First KC-45 In Germany For Cargo Mods

KC-45%20In%20Germany%20For%20Cargo%20Mods" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0In%20Germany%20For%20Cargo%20Mods

Looks like EADS is proceeding with cargo conversion of the first KC-45A on their own. At least they have confidence in their product to go ahead with development without Air Force funding. I don't see Boeing funding a KC-767AT on their own to prove it is less risky than a KC-30.

At least EADS knows they have lots of other interested customers in the KC-45, if Congress does kill the program.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:37 am



Quoting CYQL (Reply 62):
Looks like EADS is proceeding with cargo conversion of the first KC-45A on their own. At least they have confidence in their product to go ahead with development without Air Force funding.

I would suggest you better read that which you cite. Quotations from you cited article below.

"The Air Force obligated $60 million to the winning team prior to the protest."

"though work stopped on the project before it got under way.

The first developmental KC-45, called D-1, was sent to Airbus's passenger-to-cargo conversion facility in Dresden March 4. Work on the cargo modification was to begin March 12."

"Per standard procedure, the Air Force issued a stop-work order to Northrop Grumman on March 14, and work on the D-1 conversion came to a halt before it began, according to a company official."


So the way I read it is that for 60 million bucks they flew an A330F to Germany and there it sits collecting dust. Sixty million sure doesn't go far these days.
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:57 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 63):
I would suggest you better read that which you cite. Quotations from you cited article below.

You forgot the next paragraph.

"Northrop Grumman has been coy about what work is under way, largely because of Boeing's protest. The company only acknowledged the transfer of the aircraft late last week."

I interpret that to mean they are still working on the aircraft.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:19 am

Again I quote:


"Per standard procedure, the Air Force issued a stop-work order to Northrop Grumman on March 14, and work on the D-1 conversion came to a halt before it began, according to a company official."

Where is there room for interpretation?

My much more valid interpretation based on what was written is that they needed the space to be freed up in France or wherever the plane was before and they moved it. They are not working on it because the air force said not to. It's all there in black and white but if you really want to get into creative interpretations let me know.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14776
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:26 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 65):

Where is there room for interpretation?

It is VERY clear the direction was given to NG, as they have the contract with the USAF.

EADS does not have a contract with the USAF, it is not effected by any stop work order. EADS is in the process of building all 4 SDD airframes right now, with full expectation they will be delivered early to NG and the USAF (they are aiming at 7-9 months early).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:52 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 66):
EADS does not have a contract with the USAF, it is not effected by any stop work order. EADS is in the process of building all 4 SDD airframes right now, with full expectation they will be delivered early to NG and the USAF (they are aiming at 7-9 months early).

If so, they will do so at their own risk, as, once the stop-work notice is issued, there is no mechanism for the aforementioned $60m to be paid for authorised work.

Quoting Alien (Reply 63):
So the way I read it is that for 60 million bucks they flew an A330F to Germany and there it sits collecting dust. Sixty million sure doesn't go far these days

$60m may have been "obligated", but it almost certainly won't have been paid.

Regards
 
bennett123
Posts: 9380
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:14 am

What is not clear to be in Boeing's complaint is this;

If the KC767 is such an obvious winner, why did the USAF choose the KC330.

There has been reference to NG funding politicians, or DOD employees going into industry, but surely that applies to Boeing as well.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:28 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 68):
What is not clear to be in Boeing's complaint is this;

If the KC767 is such an obvious winner, why did the USAF choose the KC330.

There has been reference to NG funding politicians, or DOD employees going into industry, but surely that applies to Boeing as well.

Of course it does. Neither side has clean hands.

Today in the Washington Post there is a full page ad with a letter signed by a bunch of retired Air Froce generals to Sec Gates, moaning about how "OUR Air Force" was being unfairly maligned, and how Gates should end the squabble.

These guys just don't get it. It isn't "their" Air Force. It belongs to the entire country, and there are established procedures that must be followed when a bid is awarded - and that includes dealing with a bid protest.

A bunch of arrogant retired generals isn't going to change that.
"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: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:27 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 66):
EADS does not have a contract with the USAF, it is not effected by any stop work order. EADS is in the process of building all 4 SDD airframes right now,

That may well be so but that is not what the article that was being cited said.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Today in the Washington Post there is a full page ad with a letter signed by a bunch of retired Air Froce generals to Sec Gates, moaning about how "OUR Air Force" was being unfairly maligned, and how Gates should end the squabble.

They sure are an arrogant bunch. When you go out and spend 40 billion dollars of the taxpayers money and there is considerable reason to doubt that a full, effective evaluation that takes all factors into account was done you should expect that the people that pay you should want some oversight and accountability. It's attitudes like that which are the cause of the price of acquisition programs going through the roof.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 68):

If the KC767 is such an obvious winner

That is not the issue. Was the evaluation process done correctly? Where all factors given the proper weight? Is it smart to be sending more jobs and money than necessary offshore, etc...... are the issues.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18518
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 70):
Was the evaluation process done correctly?

This is the main (only?) concern of the GAO.

Quoting Alien (Reply 70):
Where all factors given the proper weight?

Is this actually an issue for anyone other than the AF? The AF should know which factors are most important and give those the highest weighting. The bidders knew what the top five RFP criteria were.

Quoting Alien (Reply 70):
Is it smart to be sending more jobs and money than necessary offshore, etc

This is only an issue for the politicians, it's certainly not one for the USAF or the GAO. Domestic job creation was not part of the RFP, so it was correctly not considered by the USAF, and will be of no interest to the GAO.
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.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13493
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:26 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 71):
this actually an issue for anyone other than the AF? The AF should know which factors are most important and give those the highest weighting. The bidders knew what the top five RFP criteria were.

Of course, it is the business of every civilian in our country and every taxpayer who pays for the Air Force to do its job in the best way possible, was this the best way? we shall see. My two cents, I say it was not. Boeing is a defense contractor and losing a 100 billion dollar contract does not help our defense or economy at all. We are not talking rocket science here, we are basiclly dealing with a modified civilian airliner.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 72):
Boeing is a defense contractor and losing a 100 billion dollar contract does not help our defense or economy at all. We are not talking rocket science here, we are basically dealing with a modified civilian airliner.

If this is true, why are we discussing this. So far the first contract is for a lot less money than 100 billion. And what about NG-EADS/USA and GE who are the winners of this deal. Are they not in the US defense economy? When did this happen? Or is (or should they be in your opinion?) the Boeing company the only US contractor in the Defense Industry?

Basically we are discussing this because "your" favorite aircraft manufacturer lost in a fair competition on merits. I do not see the problem in that except if anybody owns Boeing stock. Boeing has admitted that they already forecasted the win of this deal in the long-term financial prognosis. A very arrogant move which could hurt them a little bit in the near future.

The KC-45 is about 60% made out of US components. The economical value will be even higher than 60%. The B767 will probably be around 80% (I do not have the exact figure at hand) US made. So the 100% US option is not even on the table here!
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:38 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
So far the first contract is for a lot less money than 100 billion.

Once those four SDD aircraft are delivered there is little chance that the rest of the initial 40 billion dollar contract will go to Boeing. There is much at stake here and you obviously don't understand the procurement process otherwise you would not be making such a statement.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
And what about NG-EADS/USA and GE

What about them. EADS, a foreign company will take 42 percent of the value of the contract. More if you count the profits on the work done by EADS North America. NG is doing nothing more than program management and militarization and for larger economic reasons I would rather see Pratt and Whitney stay healthy as a commercial jet engine maker. I do not want to see a duopoly of GE and Rolls Royce. In fact as an American I want to see Rolls out of business and Pratt and Whitney compete solely with GE. Sorry, but it's just that simple.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
Or is (or should they be in your opinion?) the Boeing company the only US contractor in the Defense Industry?

Actually the long term prospects for Boeing to stay in the defense business do not look good. Yet another reason to not like this "deal".

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
Basically we are discussing this because "your" favorite aircraft manufacturer lost in a fair competition on merits.

Very wrong, see above. I have no "favorite" as long as it's domestic. Financially I own stock in both NG and Boeing. I want both to prosper. In fact I would be very happy if NG had designed a large transport from the ground up and had won.

As for fair, well that remains to be seen. I don;t know how anyone on this forum can state whether the competition was fair or not. We shall see what the GAO comes up with come June.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
The KC-45 is about 60% made out of US components. The economical value will be even higher than 60%.

You have it backwards. It's actually about 58% economic value. The content amount is less. The only reason why it is this high is because of the militarization and integration work of NG.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
The B767 will probably be around 80% (I do not have the exact figure at hand) US made.

It actually will be higher since that is the number for a civilian 767. Add all the military gear and it's closer to 90%.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
So the 100% US option is not even on the table here!

I don;t think anyone said it had to be.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13493
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:08 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
Basically we are discussing this because "your" favorite aircraft manufacturer lost in a fair competition on merits. I do not see the problem in

I am discussing this because I cannot stand curruption, or the hint of it, as far as I know something smells here, I have not discussed the specifications of either aircraft, I am not an expert. I am going on information in the press and on television here and also from a member of the US Senate who represents my district. I will say again that we are talking about a glorified, modified civilian aircraft, nothing super technical or whizzbang. We are also talking 100 billion dollars, we are talking jobs, which have been sent out of the US. by the millions. I do not own Boeing stock, I am not xenophobic. I also have faith in Boeing to be able to provide tankers to the USAF like they have for fifty years. I have faith that this will be looked at in a fair manner by the GAO, after all they represent the U.S. citizens through our government, not NG/ EADS, or Boeing.
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: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:50 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 74):
Actually the long term prospects for Boeing to stay in the defense business do not look good.

I find that statement odd. Why do you state that? Boeing must be one of the top three defence contractors in the world. What is so bleak about it's future?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 75):
I also have faith in Boeing to be able to provide tankers to the USAF like they have for fifty years.

The last tanker provided to the USAF by Boeing was in the mid-60's. They provided France, Turkey and Singapore after that date. They have, of course, been supporting and upgrading the KC-135 for many years.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:05 am



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 76):
I find that statement odd. Why do you state that? Boeing must be one of the top three defence contractors in the world. What is so bleak about it's future?

The Super Hornet, Eagle, and C-17 lines future are all very much in doubt. There really is not much else of any size other than the MV-22 and the P-8.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:26 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 77):
The Super Hornet, Eagle, and C-17 lines future are all very much in doubt. There really is not much else of any size other than the MV-22 and the P-8.

On the fixed wing front it does look a bit barren, bar the Osprey, P-8 and F-22 involvement. It does appear Boeing has their fingers in quite a lot of other areas though, CSAR for one. They'll bounce back. They are too good a company not too.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:23 am

Lets remember there may at most be 400 F-22s and Boeing is merely s sub contractor. CSAR was awarded Boeing. Sikorsky and Augusta Westland protested and the GAO had the Air Force issue a new RFP. Kind of sounds familiar. I bet Jack will tell you that the EH-101 is a better choice. He is nothing if not predictable.

Boeing may well be a good company but there really is not much out there for the next few years of any size.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:21 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 74):
As for fair, well that remains to be seen. I don;t know how anyone on this forum can state whether the competition was fair or not.

But they all seem to want to.

Quoting Alien (Reply 74):
We shall see what the GAO comes up with come June

Correct.

Rgds
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:16 am

Predictable because it's obvious. The EH101 is simply a MUCH better aircraft for CSAR.

The Chinook is a great heavylift helicopter, but it's noisy and it can't operate into confined areas, it's deployability is questionable, the door's too small, it's downwash characteristics are problematic and it's a dreadful winching platform.

These are all factors of critical importance for CSAR, but not for some other missions.

Neither the RAF nor the US DoD could do without the Chinook, but a CSAR aircraft it ain't.

I am not, however, entirely convinced that CSAR-X is, in reality, intended to provide an aircraft for CSAR. I still have a feeling in my bones that this is a USAF back-door into rivalling the 160th. If that's the case, then the HH-47's a good choice.

As to Boeing, even with the E-10 moribund, those E-3s, E-8s and RC-135s will need replacing, and the Chinook line is full even without CSAR-X. Then there's the USN requirement for hundreds more T-45s, and every chance of more export orders for F-15 and Super Hornet.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:52 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 79):
Boeing may well be a good company but there really is not much out there for the next few years of any size.

Then Boeing will have to pull out all the stops in whatever competition comes along next (ignoring KC-X for a moment). Boeing does not have a God given right to huge plum defense contracts. They are after all a commercial company, just like NG, LM, Raytheon etc.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:59 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 81):
The EH101 is simply a MUCH better aircraft for CSAR.

Not true. The CH-47 has better performance, has more room for growth and can carry more payload. Again, sound familiar? The air force loves bigger remember. Or do you selectively think the Air Force is wrong? Noise has been proven to be a red herring. All helos are noisy. The door and winch are not the same as a stock CH-47. The deploy ability issue is at best debatable.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 81):
those E-3s, E-8s and RC-135s will need replacing

If the KC-X decision stands they will also be replaced by A330s. Lets be real here Jack. They are not going to buy 179 of one airframe and then buy a few dozen of a different one. Historically this just has not happened.

The Super Hornets will be bought by the Navy but not in the numbers or for the number of years that matter. The F-15 has a very limited market as well.
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:41 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 76):
The last tanker provided to the USAF by Boeing was in the mid-60's. They provided France, Turkey and Singapore after that date. They have, of course, been supporting and upgrading the KC-135 for many years.

The tankers sold to Turkey and Singapore were A models that were in storage at KDAM that then flew to Tik for Depot and customer requested work then flown to Wichita for conversion from J-57 to CFM 56, Boeing just did the engine upgrade and engineering support, most of the hands work was completed by USAF civilians.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:18 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 57):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Now, I will agree Boeing has paid therough the nose with the Wedgetail airplanes. That is a very complicated weapons system, even more so than the E-3 AWACS, because the radar antenna has no moving parts.


A number of AEW&C aircraft are flying, you can pick them up from half a dozen different manufacturers, even Boeing has more than one platform that does that role, I fail to see what is "very complicated" about it. In terms of being a "weapons system", as fair as I am aware, the aircraft will not carry any weapons.

There is no requirement for a weapons system airplane to carry bullets, bombs, or missiles. The shooters (fighters, attack aircraft, and bombers) do, but other weapons systems include force projection (tankers), force management (CCC), recon, AWACS, some cargo (paratroops, and AF Airlines (Argentina)">SF guys), Helios, and others. So, Wedgetails are weapons systems. If you don't understand why an AWACS type aircraft is complicated, then you don't understand how and why the military forces use airplanes. Any airplane in the military is built for one, or more, mission types. Even though most of the mission work is done by back end crews, that does not mean the flight deck crew doesn't have additional tasks assigned beyond simply being a pilot. On many types of aircraft, you have an Aircraft Commander (the Pilot in Command), and a Mission Commander. The PIC is only responsible for safety of flight issues, the Mission Commander is responsible for everything else. The Wedgetail is one of the most complicated airplanes ever built in terms of what it is expected to do for the RAAF. It is near the top of the most expensive airplanes ever built, eclipsed only by the different RC-135 versions, the B-2, VC-25, E4s and the USAF E-3.

Quoting CYQL (Reply 62):
First KC-45 In Germany For Cargo Mods

KC-45%20In%20Germany%20For%20Cargo%20Mods" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0In%20Germany%20For%20Cargo%20Mods

Looks like EADS is proceeding with cargo conversion of the first KC-45A on their own. At least they have confidence in their product to go ahead with development without Air Force funding. I don't see Boeing funding a KC-767AT on their own to prove it is less risky than a KC-30.

At least EADS knows they have lots of other interested customers in the KC-45, if Congress does kill the program.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 66):
Quoting Alien (Reply 65):

Where is there room for interpretation?

It is VERY clear the direction was given to NG, as they have the contract with the USAF.

EADS does not have a contract with the USAF,it is not effected by any stop work order. EADS is in the process of building all 4 SDD airframes right now, with full expectation they will be delivered early to NG and the USAF (they are aiming at 7-9 months early).

No, EADS is not under contract to the USAF. But, they are the sub-contractor (to NG), and it is up to NG to issue a stop all work order to them. If EADS continues to work after NG orders them to stop, they could violate contract provisions the government has regarding stop work orders or cancelations for the convenience of the government. Now even though there is no contract, yet for EADS to violate, their actions could keep from finalizing the contract, and it will never be signed.

This could be view as arrogance.

A 7-9 month early delivery may also be a contract violation, as it may affect FY budgets. Usually, early delivery of high ticket items, USN ships and USAF aircraft, means 2-3 months early, but not over the beginning/end of a FY.

The USAF is not an airline who can easily accept an airplane 7-9 months early. Their are other considerations in the budget besides the airplane. These include training, simulators delivery, infrastructure costs, maintenance costs, fly hours costs, manning issues, O&M budgets, and other costs. The USAF cannot budget in these costs early for a sub contractor.

But, I find it unusual to give the USAF production preference over many airlines and other military orders. As you keep saying, the RAAF will get their A-330MRTTs on time, or very close to it (customer requested delay). The RAF and RSAF seem to also be getting their airplanes pretty much on time. There is a huge back order for the A-330, as you keep pointing out, but which airline(s) got pushed back so the USAF could get those earlier production slots, even though there is no actual order for the airplanes, yet.

So, why is EADS screwing other customers just to fill a USAF order that does not exists yet? Remember the contract awarded to NG on 29 Feb. has not been signed, yet. So, in reality, nothing has officially been ordered.

BTW, there are two reasons for not negotiating the contract yet, outside of price. First is the Boeing protest to the GAO. Second, the USAF has to decide the actual configuration and options they will want installed by the OEM.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:29 am

Alien.

The Merlin is a MUCH better CSAR aircraft than Chinook.

Absolutely true, I'm afraid.

The CH-47 is a better heavylift helo than Merlin, and yes, does have marginally better altitude performance, and significantly more payload. NEITHER OF WHICH ARE AS SIGNIFICANT FOR SAR AS NOISE SIGNATURE, SPEED, AND WINCHING CHARACTERISTICS.

Remember what the SAR in CSAR stands for.

No-one uses Chinooks for SAR, because it's a poor SAR platform. The door's in the wrong place and too small for winching. The downwash is so intense that RAF Chinooks have set off landmines with downwash alone, and the winchman is buffeted badly. The aircraft is too big to operate in confined LZs.

I don't "selectively think the Air Force is wrong" - I've spoken to more than a dozen HH-60 CSAR operators and every one of them rates HH-71 over the HH-47 and S-92, several of them having flown two or three of the contenders. Every current CSAR operator I have seen quoted has said the same thing. The aircrew fora were full of CSAR folk bemoaning the selection of HH-47 for CSAR. Everyone agrees that the CH-47 is a magnificent heavylift helicopter but the point is that it's unsuited for CSAR.

Noise has not "been proven to be a red herring." All helos are not noisy in the way that the CH-47 is. You can hear a Chinook coming from miles away, and the noise is distinctive and so directional that you can look straight towards the source. By comparison, you don't hear a Merlin until it's on top of you and even then, it's strangely non-directional.

That's relevant as the RAF have found during IRT ops (which are analagous to CSAR in this respect) in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the enemy hear the Chinook coming, and where we've had to add armour to the Chinooks because they have time to set up ambushes. The memorable quote is that "The Chinook is dicked from take off to landing."

Deployability is critical for CSAR and the Chinook's disadvantages are clear - not merely debatable. The aircraft takes significantly longer to dismantle for and build up after air transport, and even longer to ready for operational missions. The aircraft's size and lack of folding make shipboard ops problematic.

No-one is a bigger admirer of the Chinook than I am, and I would not want my country's air force not to have Chinooks in the inventory. But it's as hideously badly suited for some tasks (eg CSAR) as it is magnificently well suited to others.

Nor do I agree that the winner of KC-X will be a 'shoo in' for the E-10 type RC-135/E-3/E-8 replacement. Boeing were offering a quite different version of the 767 to their proposed tanker proposal, and you only have to look at the various DC-9/727/737 types to see that the USAF have always been willing to support relatively small niche fleets.

This is also one area where I think that US control at the design stage is a legitimate concern- or even demand. If I was the USAF I wouldn't want to be giving EADS the kind of information they'd need to design a Rivet Joint (or heaven forbid, a Combat Sent) replacement.

As to Boeing's prospects, the company must stand on its own two feet, and must survive without being given contracts to supply second best aircraft. It will survive, because it has so many first class aircraft. The USN is looking hard at more T-45s, the F-15 programme people are confident of more export orders for their aircraft (Japan, perhaps, more for Korea and Singapore, perhaps even more for Saudi Arabia, etc.). The Super Bug looks a good fit in Switzerland and perhaps in India, and there are plenty of other prospects, and the Chinook line is quite busy enough even without HH-47s.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:00 pm

The Merlin is a MUCH better CSAR aircraft than Chinook.[/quote]


Since this is off the tanker topic...I'll add my response in the "Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X? " thread.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:14 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Today in the Washington Post there is a full page ad with a letter signed by a bunch of retired Air Froce generals to Sec Gates, moaning about how "OUR Air Force" was being unfairly maligned, and how Gates should end the squabble.

And in today's Washington Post there is an article dealing with that ad and other factors:

"Northrop paid the bill for that ad. All of the 22 retired Air Force generals who signed that letter to Gates "either work for or consult for" Northrop or EADS, according to Northrop spokesman Randy Belote."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08040203531.html?hpid=sec-business

Really adds credibility to NG/Airbus's position stated in the ad. Wonder who actually wrote the ad.

Overall this is going to be a nasty battle with both sides placing a lot of money with their "supporters".
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13493
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:09 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 88):
Really adds credibility to NG/Airbus's position stated in the ad. Wonder who actually wrote the ad.

22 retired guys.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:32 am



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
Boeing was led to believe that its 767 was the appropriate platform to offer

Yes, it met the minimum requirements.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
This excess capacity sacrifices fundamental Air Force requirements of deployability and survivability.

Really? What would those be? In fact, performance wise, the KC-30 seems to benefit our requirements.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
While the KC-30 had 30 discriminators and five weaknesses, among them its aerial refueling boom, the KC-767 had 98 discriminators and only one weakness. It doesn’t add up.

Again...what would be the weakness with its refueling boom? What was the KC-767 weakness? Could it possibly have been a major one?

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
and 75 years of tanker-building experience

Ahhh...no.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
with no experience building tankers together

That's more of a slam against Boeing than anything else...I mean come on...they did in fact present the better aircraft capability wise.

Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 11):
instructing USAF to reopen the bidding and allow Boeing to propose a tanker based on a larger airplane

Wow..."we want a do-over!!!" Give me a break. Boeing has already stated, as someone else pointed out, that a larger tanker option for them would be almost three years away.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 22):
Joe Public doesn't know this but in order to change an RFP the government team has to inform ALL bidders and request their responses. If at any point Boeing was caught napping and responded with a "no comment" too bad.

Most here rooting for Boeing won't acknowledge that though.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
The bottom line is that the A330 came out first on EACH of the FIVE overal criteria the USAF used to combine all evaluations into, whereas the KC767 managed to beat the KC30 ZERO times! I'd say that is proof of a greatly inferior product.

Well...aside from the fact I believe the right airframe team won, I wouldn't call Boeing's offering greatly inferior. They do put out good planes. They certainly havn't been building tankers for 75 years as some claim. They may have that much time in research, but show me the mass produced aircraft...here's a hint, there wasn't any. Not until the 707/135 came along. Which to its credit has been an awesome workhorse.
 
JoeinTX
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:16 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:17 am

I've been haunting this place for a long time but this topic finally got me to register and pay up.

#1-"Actually the long term prospects for Boeing to stay in the defense business do not look good. Yet another reason to not like this "deal"...."

Boeing is currently involved with the Strike Eagle (orders waning), the Super Hornet (very decent over the next few years), the Wedgetail series (small numbers but high $), the P-8 (bigger numbers and bigger $$$ with many prospective buyers), what remains with the C-17 line (winding down.) Do not forget that Boeing is very involved in the U/CAV field and the U.S. military is primed to buy thousands of unmanned air vehicles in the decades to come not to mention the forces of countless nations around the world. Boeing and L-M are teaming up to compete for the "2018" bomber against N-G. If Boeing does their due dilligence and offers the products and ideas then they will be just fine. If they don't, then they deserve to exit stage left. If Boeing can't produce but L-M or N-G or Raytheon or General Atomics or L3 or EADS or BAE or California Microwave or DENEL or MD Helicopter can..........then so be it as the free market works itself out. Boeing is currently reaping the benefits of the T-45 Goshawk arrangement (a BAe Hawk modified for naval use originally won by Mcdonnel Douglas and now Boeing property) with the potential for further orders now being mentioned. Apparently, when Boeing is the beneficiary of a contract for a foreign designed yet U.S. manufactured product in the hundreds of units produced, it's just fine. When Northrup-Grumman/EADS gets one..............it is Hell on Earth.

#2-The USAF never, in any form or fashion, set a "size limit" for this tanker competition. None. Zero. Never. Does not exist.

When Boeing asked about submitting a 777 based offer, the USAF said it was too big. And, it was. The 777 is notably larger and more expensive than either the 767 or KC-30. The A330-based KC-30 in between, but, closer to the 767 versus the triple 7.

#3-In relation to number 2, the USAF expressed from the beginning that bids exceeeding the desired requirements would receive "extra credit" in the decision finale for doing so: KC-X%20Extra%20Credit%20Was%20No%20Secret&channel=defense" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Was%20No%20Secret&channel=defense

#4-The N-G/Airbus offering is closer to final production than the Boeing offering. Boeing offered a weird comblination of varying 767 airframe components to produce its bid. NG/EADS has its airplane intact and ready to roll. Boeing does not have a flying example of its KC(X) bid.

#5-If Boeing's offering is clearly superior in all aspects and economically more favorable........then the GAO review will state so and the competition is on again. IF this same GAO finds that the bidding and processes were compliant and that the NG/EADS bid is perfectly legitimate.............I want the Boeing fans and uber-homers to table their complaints. Knock it off! If it finds the competition somehow skewed or corrupt then I am all for a recomposense.

Will the anti-KC-30-ites offer the same? It would be nice, but I doubt it seriously.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:49 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 86):
The Merlin is a MUCH better CSAR aircraft than Chinook.

Funny, that's not what the Air Force thinks. The GAO overturned the bid not because of any fault in determining which platform is better for the USAF (notice the distinction Jack) rather that they failed to properly evaluate maintenance costs. Nothing about winches, doors, noise or any of your other opinionated criteria. By the USAFs criteria the Chinook is the better platform.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 86):
As to Boeing's prospects, the company must stand on its own two feet, and must survive without being given contracts to supply second best aircraft.

Whether they are supplying second best aircraft or not is merely your overly opinionated...opinion. You have proven nothing on that front. What is a fact is it really should not matter to you and in fact it should not surprise you that the choice of military aircraft is dictated by not only performance but cost, economic, and political considerations. This is nothing new in Europe so it should come as no surprise when it happens here as well. Europe has been just fine with the Tornado and Typhoon, the USAF will be just fine with the KC-767.

Quoting JoeinTX (Reply 91):
.I want the Boeing fans and uber-homers to table their complaints. Knock it off! If it finds the competition somehow skewed or corrupt then I am all for a recomposense.

It is short sighted attitudes like yours that are responsible for the gutting of industry in the US. The KC-767 is good enough. It met every requirement. Why send money jobs and expertise offshore when you don't have to. I will be damned if my tax dollars will.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:10 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 69):
Today in the Washington Post there is a full page ad with a letter signed by a bunch of retired Air Froce generals to Sec Gates, moaning about how "OUR Air Force" was being unfairly maligned, and how Gates should end the squabble.

These guys just don't get it. It isn't "their" Air Force. It belongs to the entire country, and there are established procedures that must be followed when a bid is awarded - and that includes dealing with a bid protest.

A bunch of arrogant retired generals isn't going to change that.

What a bunch of arrogent NG or EADS "consultants" and employees

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
The KC-45 is about 60% made out of US components. The economical value will be even higher than 60%. The B767 will probably be around 80% (I do not have the exact figure at hand) US made. So the 100% US option is not even on the table here!

No, the KC-45 has a 52% US content and the KC-767AT has a 79% US content. As defined by parts, material, and labor.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 86):
The Merlin is a MUSA)">CH better CSAR aircraft than Chinook.

Absolutely true, I'm afraid.

The SA)">CH-47 is a better heavylift helo than Merlin, and yes, does have marginally better altitude performance, and significantly more payload. NEITHER OF WHICH ARE SA)">AS SIGNIFICANT FOR SAR SA)">AS NOISE SIGNATURE, SPEED, AND WINCHING CHARACTERISTICS.

Wrong, Jacko. The SA)">CH-47 has almost twice the SHP of the SA)">CH-72, the Chinook has far superior (not "marginally better", SA)">CH-47 is good to 18,000', the SA)">CH-72 is good to 10,000') high altitude performance over the SA)">CH-72. If you think that is not significant for SAR missions, look at a map of Afghanistan.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 88):
Really adds credibility to NG/Airbus's position stated in the ad. Wonder who actually wrote the ad.

22 retired guys.

You couldn't get 4 USAF Generals to agree on anything, how can 22 do it? Hint: They cannot.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
Boeing was led to believe that its 767 was the appropriate platform to offer

Yes, it met the minimum requirements.

No, the KC-767AT met the RFP requirements. So did the KC-30A. There was no extra points for exceeding the RFP requirements

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
While the KC-30 had 30 discriminators and five weaknesses, among them its aerial refueling boom, the KC-767 had 98 discriminators and only one weakness. It doesn’t add up.

Again...what would be the weakness with its refueling boom? What was the KC-767 weakness? Could it possibly have been a major one?

The fact the refueling boom has never been tested on the A-330MRTT. In fact, the boom on the A-330MRTT has never left the chocks inflight. Other A-330 weaknesses are the larger size with heavier foot print, higher fuel comsumption/operating costs, visibility around the winglets (these may be omitted in the USAF version), and the fact it cannot refuel at the highest refueling speeds and lowest refueling speeds.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
and 75 years of tanker-building experience

Ahhh...no.

Ahhh...yes. Check your history books, the 1929 "Operation Question Mark" was an air refueling test. The receiver aircraft was a US Army Air Service Atlantic-Fokker C-2A,the tanker aircraft was a USAAS Douglas (now Boeing) C-1. Question Mark flew continously for 7 days (1-7 Jan. 1929) and refueled 37 times.

But, on 27 June 1923, the very first air refueling took place between 2 Boeing built DeHaviland SA)">DH-4Bs of the USAAS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Mark_%28aircraft%29

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
with no experience building tankers together

That's more of a slam against Boeing than anything else...I mean come on...they did in fact present the better aircraft capability wise.

Bigger is not better in the tanker business.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 22):
Joe Public doesn't know this but in order to change an RFP the government team has to inform ALL bidders and request their responses. If at any point Boeing was caught napping and responded with a "no comment" too bad.

Most here rooting for Boeing won't acknowledge that though

The USAF didn't change the RFP, they looked at the way tankers fly missions differently, and didn't inform Boeing.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
Besides, the KC767 didn't fully meet the requirements as some keep on mentioning ad infinitum: it can't take off from a 7,000ft runway at MTOW under all of the meteorological conditions required by the USAF. It is definitely not a good idea to have a fleet of tankers which are seriously payload limited on many of the fields they are supposed to be used on and the USAF seems to think the same!

The bottom line is that the A330 came out first on EASA)">CH of the FIVE overal criteria the USAF used to combine all evaluations into, whereas the KC767 managed to beat the KC30 ZERO times! I'd say that is proof of a greatly inferior product.

The USAF has never said the KC-767AT didn't meet or exceed all the RFP requirements, including the 7000' take off at MTOW. So that is a myth.

BTW, the KC-30A and KC-767AT scored the SAME (as in identical scores) in each of the 5 grading criteria. Neither the KC-767AT, nor the KC-30A outscored the other.

The fact the GAO refuesed both NG's and USAF's request to dismiss some of Boeing's protest facts confirms this. No, this does not mean the GAO upholds Boeing's protest (the investigation continues). It means that NG and USAFs dismissal requests have no merit.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:45 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
No, the KC-767AT met the RFP requirements. So did the KC-30A. There was no extra points for exceeding the RFP requirements



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 98):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 97):
check the link

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...fense

I have a bit of trouble connecting these parts together. You say there were no extra points, the USAF says there were. No who is better informed about this, the USAF or you?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:49 am

The link is not working, Sorry.

Retry:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Was%20No%20Secret&channel=defense

Basically it says this:

Payton: KC-X Extra Credit Was No Secret

Apr 2, 2008
John M. Doyle/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report


The U.S. Air Force made it clear that “extra credit” would be awarded to competitors for the air refueling tanker contract if they exceeded the minimum capability threshold, the service’s chief acquisition officer told Congress April 1.

Losing bidder Boeing, which offered a modified version of its 767, has filed a formal protest of the award to an Airbus 330 variant offered by a Northrop Grumman/EADS team. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will rule on the validity of Boeing’s claims.

Boeing and its supporters on Capitol Hill have complained that the Air Force changed the evaluation criteria after its initial request for proposals (RFP) and picked a bigger and more expensive aircraft than Boeing’s tanker.

At a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) asked Sue Payton, Air Force under secretary for acquisition, if the Air Force gave “extra benefit to people who exceeded what was required?”

“The RFP was very clear that each offer had to meet the minimum threshold in order to stay in the competition, in order to be compliant at all,” Payton said, adding that if a competitor “didn’t meet the very minimum threshold of a requirement” they couldn’t qualify for the $35 billion contract.

“Now, it was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold,” Payton said. She explained that while the RFP made it “clear that we had no requirement for size — large or medium,” nonetheless, “we did have requirements to meet capabilities, and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold. And on three occasions we did debrief each of the offerors, as to the 808 requirements, exactly what they were getting credit for,” she said.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:20 am



Quoting JoeinTX (Reply 91):
Boeing does not have a flying example of its KC(X) bid.

NG/EADS does not have a flying example of their KC-30A. What they are flying is the RAAF version, called the KC-30B.

The KC-30B can be used as a baseline, but so can the flying KC-767A, and the actually inservice KC-767J.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 95):
At a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) asked Sue Payton, Air Force under secretary for acquisition, if the Air Force gave “extra benefit to people who exceeded what was required?”

“The RFP was very clear that each offer had to meet the minimum threshold in order to stay in the competition, in order to be compliant at all,” Payton said, adding that if a competitor “didn’t meet the very minimum threshold of a requirement” they couldn’t qualify for the $35 billion contract.

“Now, it was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold,” Payton said. She explained that while the RFP made it “clear that we had no requirement for size — large or medium,” nonetheless, “we did have requirements to meet capabilities, and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold. And on three occasions we did debrief each of the offerors, as to the 808 requirements, exactly what they were getting credit for,” she said.

That is a very broad defination of the RFP.

It does not tell why, then, the USAF awarded the KC-767AT strenghts in 98 areas, and weaknesses in 1 area. The KC-30A was awarded strenghts in 30 areas and weaknesses in 5 areas.

New salvos fired in tanker dispute
Another day, and more exchanges between Boeing and Northrop on the tanker controversy.

Boeing on Thursday said the Air Force had found, in its evaluation, fewer weakness with the 767 than with the KC-30 tanker offered by Northrop and EADS. The Air Force review identified 98 strengths and only one weakness with the 767, according to Boeing. That same Air Force review found only 30 strengths but five weakness for the KC-30, according to Boeing.

After Boeing issued a press release, and its tanker boss, Mark McGraw held a teleconference with media, Northrop quickly responded.

Northrop said "we continue to be surprised by the language being used by Boeing that suggests" the Air Force did not run a fair competition.


Northrop also recently launched what it calls America's New Tanker website that it says is to "inform the general public about the facts" surrounding the Air Force decision to buy 179 tankers from Northrop and EADS and not from Boeing.

This was the latest from Boeing:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/135753.asp
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:34 pm

More grist for the mill: I woke up to hearing a six minute interview with Boeing's VP of tankers, Mark McGraw, on NPR this morning. I thought the reporter did a pretty good job at trying to get McGraw to move off of the party line, but McGraw was pretty good at sticking to the party line. McGraw made some interesting claims about how Boeing did better on the Integrated Fleet Assesment than did NG. He said KC767 could do the missions with less airplanes, use less fuel, use less bases, and did better than NG when airfields were being denied for geopolitical reasons. I think this might be pushing the envelope of the party line out a bit, no? He also said that the USAF manipulated the cost data, which the reporter repeatedly questioned him about. He said the USAF unfairly "risked up" Boeing's data.

Also, on April 1, there was a similar interview with Ronald Sugar, CEO of NG. My main takeaway from that was that NG thinks Boeing is a being a bad sport about all this, and they should shut up and take their loss like a man (that's my spin!).

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 90):
They certainly havn't been building tankers for 75 years as some claim. They may have that much time in research, but show me the mass produced aircraft...here's a hint, there wasn't any. Not until the 707/135 came along.

In addition to KC135TopBoom's comments, I'll add that you are neglecting the following aircraft, which indeed were mass produced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KB-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KB-50

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-97

It is kind of hard to believe that 816 KC97s were produced, but it's also easy to forget that 2,042 B47s were produced!
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: 18518
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
There was no extra points for exceeding the RFP requirements

What's your source on that? I ask, because the USAF seems to be saying the exact opposite.  scratchchin 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nnel=defense&id=news/KCX040208.xml

Quote:
"Now, it was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold," Payton said. She explained that while the RFP made it "clear that we had no requirement for size --- large or medium," nonetheless, "we did have requirements to meet capabilities, and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold. And on three occasions we did debrief each of the offerors, as to the 808 requirements, exactly what they were getting credit for," she said.

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.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18518
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
It does not tell why, then, the USAF awarded the KC-767AT strenghts in 98 areas, and weaknesses in 1 area. The KC-30A was awarded strenghts in 30 areas and weaknesses in 5 areas.

Of course, it would help to know what the various strengths and weaknesses are.

Some clues buried in this article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Quote:
She said Northrop's aircraft had two weaknesses associated with its refueling boom -- limited lighting for night operations and weak boom nozzles -- but Payton said both could be resolved during the development phase.

Boeing's tanker had some advantages, but Payton concluded "they are not significant when compared to the significant refueling advantages that the KC-30 provides," according to a confidential Air Force document, which was viewed by Reuters.

It would seem, in the opinion of the AF, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two offerings, when taken holistically, come out significantly in the KC-30's favour.
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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fortytwoeyes and 40 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