checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:48 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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.

Ahhh..actually, no. Maybe you should check your history and possibly put my whole quote in next time. The little test birds and rigged refueling systems back then don't constitute tanker building. That constitutes test flights and a few specially rigged birds for the customer. The first real tanker they built was the 135.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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

Yes or No...You're disagreeing with me to agree with me...lol. As I stated, it met the minimum requirements. As in any other RFP, you can meet OR exceed those requirements...any yes, absolutely, its taken into consideration.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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.

Agreed, I'm not arguing anything about size. I said capability...I quoted what I said above for your reference.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
The USAF didn't change the RFP, they looked at the way tankers fly missions differently, and didn't inform Boeing.

Oh give me a break already...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 97):
In addition to KC135TopBoom's comments, I'll add that you are neglecting the following aircraft, which indeed were mass produced:

Havn't forgotten them, they just were not mass produced is all. They were mass converted. I'm simply talking about an aircraft that was developed specifically as a tanker...not converted. There was enough change between the 707 and the 135 that you could easily say it was developed specifically as a tanker when they produced them...just as their offering for this competition.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 98):
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.

Doesn't even matter what his source is. In RFP's like this where they are not specific about a particular product, it will say must meet or exceed. Boeing did in fact meet the RFP. But they can't honestly sit there and say they should have won over a point like this. Now if there was some funny business...interested parties...that unfairly swayed things, then by all means they should be rung through the ringer.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:02 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 88):


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."

Gee, I wonder why that fact wasn't mentioned in the letter.  sarcastic 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:28 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
So, Wedgetails are weapons systems.

I still do not think they are, they maybe part of a wider "battle management system", but in themselves, not a weapons system. Likewise I do not see a UAV that can collect similar information as what the wedgetail would be in itself a weapons system, it is a surveillance platform, but I see something like the Predator UAV equipped with the Hellfire a weapons system.

If wedgetail had some form of offensive ability I would see it as a weapons system, even an electronic offensive ability. I dont see passive platforms, be them bouys, over the horizon radar, UAVs, recon and communications satellites, or flying radar and communications platforms being offensive tools or weapons systems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
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.

EADS had completed the first frame complete to the contract being awarded, and the remaining SDD frames were already in production. EADS is supplying those frames to NG, or it can supply them to any other customer, until such time as NG pay for the frames, they have nothing to do with the contract. Likewise GE continues to make CF6 engines, they may end up on KC-45 aircraft or they may end up on another A330.

Until those parts are transferred to the prime contractor, NG has no control over them. They can be redirected to any EADS customer.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
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.

That is nothing more than your guess.

The RFP clearly says the SDD aircraft are "expenditure based" appropriation. The remaining lots are "obligation based" appropriation. (see RFP 6.1.4.1 System Development & Demonstration (SDD) and 6.1.4.2 Production (Procurement) and Deployment (PD)). The PD aircraft have a 12 month delivery window for a lot, they do not have a specified date during a year they are required.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
. 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.

Who said any got bumped, the production rate has increased, and is still increasing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):

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.

Think about it logically, for a stop work order to be in place, a contract must be in place. AFAIK the USAF did sign a contract with NG (four test aircraft for $1.5 billion and five production options targeted for 64 aircraft at $10.6 billion).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
What a bunch of arrogent NG or EADS "consultants" and employees

You seem to have no trouble using Boeing employees in the past to represent your position, go back and think how you held General (Ret) Thomas Ryan up previously when we discussed this op-ed article http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bus...EB0B5862573F1000CB067?OpenDocument

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):

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.

Incorrect, the ones produced in Mobile will be around 60%

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

Incorrect, this is what the RFP/SRD said :

Quote:
Minimum performance/capability requirements are identified as key performance parameter (KPP) thresholds. All other thresholds/requirements (in the following descending priority order: key system attribute (KSA) thresholds, thresholds, other requirements) and objectives are part of the trade space the bidder can use to define the best value system in the proposed System Specification. For the purposes of this SRD the term "shall" is only mandatory for KPP thresholds.

The USAF said both Boeing and NG met all the minimum performance/capability requirements, i.e. the key performance parameter thresholds, they had t meet these bare minimum requirements in order to compete.

The USAF NEVER said Being met all the key system attribute thresholds, other requirements and objectives, a clear example of this is the MTOW off a 7000 ft runway.

Extra points were given for meeting the key system attribute thresholds, other requirements and objectives, these were in excess of the KPP thresholds, and gave what the USAF described the KC-30A as being the best value system.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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.

That is incorrect, they have made dry contacts with the KC-30B, and have passes fuel with the boom on the A310 (ground and air), and on the KC-30B (ground only). This is still the test phase, I fully expect the boom to pass fuel on the KC-30B soon enough, when the test schedule has it doing so. The KC-767 only passed fuel in air late into its test schedule as well, the schedule timing should be of no surprise to anyone.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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.

The USAF said the KC-767 met all KPP thresholds (which it must of in order to compete), it is not the same as "all the RFP requirements".

The public does not know the difference, but the USAF, GAO, NG, and we do. Those comments are designed to gain public support from the naive, and from naive politicians.

You are gaining no traction/support here by not understanding the content of the RFP/SRD, or by misrepresenting the facts.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:45 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
"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."

Why would a letter writen by twenty two "employees" of NG/EADS to Sec Gates asking him to end the squabbling matter at all?

This letter makes these "titans of airpower" look like the dumbest people to have every worn a uniform.

The issue of protest is in the hands of the Govt Accounting Office (GAO), GAO does not work for Dept of Defense (DoD)...so writing to SECDEF is pointless...Since writing to SECDEF is pointless, we must presume these former leaders of the USAF, now employed by NG/EADS have forgotten that GAO doesn't work for SECDEF.

The alternative is we must conclude these NG/EADS employees know this letter is nothing more than a paid advertisement by their employer and allow their names to be used for an advertisement motivated by nothing more than greed.

Clearly these twenty two people hope that no one knows that a letter to Gates is absolutely useless at this point in the debate. Nice going guys...you have managed to shamed yourselves and your uniforms for 30 pieces of EADS silver.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:17 pm

Sure they get credit for extra... that was in the RFP... what was also in the RFP is that you dont get credit for what cant be used. If you can hold a million gallons of JetA but can't take off... do you get credit for the full million gallons? No. but that is essentially what USAF did when they ignored the basing issues with the KC30.

For a good account of the issues, see this article.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25851

Boeing does have a good case

Pyg
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:09 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2146273020080421?sp=true

Seems like the Air Force has gotten tired of this now.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:35 am

I'm far from an expert and will leave it to the GAO to determine if there is a problem with the decision. And I'll leave it to the politicians to determine the level of funding it gets. If the Republicans take the White House then "President McCain" will have no problems signing off on anything but Boeing. Democrats might be another matter, but we'll have to wait & see.

The one thing I would love to know about this deal is the impact of the Euro - Dollar exchange rate. If the Dollar continues to fall will the price increase - and is this taken into account by the USAF? If the Dollar can magically rise will the costs of the tanker and all the Airbus spare parts fall? Would be nice to know how the USAF handled this little issue.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:15 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
I dont see passive platforms, be them bouys, over the horizon radar, UAVs, recon and communications satellites, or flying radar and communications platforms being offensive tools or weapons systems.

Oh they are...  Smile

All of these data gathering platforms are fully integrated parts of a "system" designed to deliver weapons.

You can bet your bottom dollar that all the engineers who work on the Radar/ESM/ECM etc suites on these products are "weapons" engineers....

Regards
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:27 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
If the Dollar continues to fall will the price increase - and is this taken into account by the USAF?

I am sure NG/EADS gave their price estimate based on the prediction of a continuously rising Euro. But then it'd be interesting to know whether they gave them any price guarantee regarding this.

They probably would, if they were smart, as the impact of having an assembly line in the US is going to favor EADS/Airbus' civilian products as well.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:24 pm

There is an interesting article in the New York Times about the Navy trying to rely on an existing commercial design:

"In a narrow sense, the troubled birth of the coastal ships was rooted in the Navy’s misbegotten faith in a feat of maritime alchemy: building a hardened warship by adapting the design of a high-speed commercial ferry."

The Navy's problems does not automatically mean that the USAF will have the same or similar problems with their tanker, but it does provide sufficient warning to both the USAF and the politicians who will fund the tanker program, regardless of who ends up with the contract.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us...200&en=4721c3761b8ec34c&ei=5087%0A
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:03 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 109):
There is an interesting article in the New York Times about the Navy trying to rely on an existing commercial design

Both tankers are derived from a commercial application, so this is a non-issue at this point. The cost of an all new mil-spec tanker would be tremendous.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:39 pm



Quoting Agill (Reply 105):
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2146273020080421?sp=true

Seems like the Air Force has gotten tired of this now.

I'm sure the USAF is VERY tired of all these protests...but why do people continue to quote Loren Thompson as an "expert" on anything...has he ever been right about anything?

Thompson quoted in this story saying: Gen McNabb "represents the warfighter who's ultimately going to be using these things."

Gen McNabb is the USAF Vice Chief of Staff...the Vice Chief is not involved in source selection, but there are "warfighters" or subject matter experts from the tanker community who were involved in this selection.

I think Gen McNabb would defer to the actual SME's who worked on the program....As for Thompson's claim of the General's "warfighter experience" with tankers...the sum of this experience is 2 years with Air Mobility Commands Tanker Airlift Control Center from 1997 - 1999.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:01 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 100):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
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.

Ahhh..actually, no. Maybe you should check your history and possibly put my whole quote in next time. The little test birds and rigged refueling systems back then don't constitute tanker building. That constitutes test flights and a few specially rigged birds for the customer. The first real tanker they built was the 135.

The KC-135 is the first and only airplane designed from the beginning as a tanker. the KC-30/-45 is a varient of the A-330, and will always fly as an A-330 before it is converted to a tanker.

BTW, the KC-97 was designed as a version of the C-97, but had a seperate design and was not a conversion (except the YKC-97A, was converted from a C-97C)

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 100):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 97):
In addition to KC135TopBoom's comments, I'll add that you are neglecting the following aircraft, which indeed were mass produced:

Havn't forgotten them, they just were not mass produced is all. They were mass converted. I'm simply talking about an aircraft that was developed specifically as a tanker...not converted.

As is the A-330 tanker conversions.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
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.

EADS had completed the first frame complete to the contract being awarded, and the remaining SDD frames were already in production. EADS is supplying those frames to NG, or it can supply them to any other customer, until such time as NG pay for the frames, they have nothing to do with the contract. Likewise GE continues to make CF6 engines, they may end up on KC-45 aircraft or they may end up on another A330.

Until those parts are transferred to the prime contractor, NG has no control over them. They can be redirected to any EADS customer.

Then why are they being stored by EADS?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
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.

That is nothing more than your guess.

No, unless there is a multi-year contract, which allows early delivery, then US law will not allow delivery if it is the prior FY.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
The RFP clearly says the SDD aircraft are "expenditure based" appropriation. The remaining lots are "obligation based" appropriation. (see RFP 6.1.4.1 System Development & Demonstration (SDD) and 6.1.4.2 Production (Procurement) and Deployment (PD)). The PD aircraft have a 12 month delivery window for a lot, they do not have a specified date during a year they are required.

That part is correct, the 12 month "window" is the FY, from October to the next September. For example, if the airplane lot of 12 (or 15, or 18) is budgeted in FY 2014, that contract lot will have a delivery of FY 2016, meaning 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2016. Those airplanes can be delivered at any time between those dates. If any airplane is completed, before 1 October 2015, it cannot be delivered, as the USAF cannot pay for it, nor will they have the funding for flying hours or maintenance on it. It must be stored, at NG or EADS expense. Storage can be at AMARC in DM, but to fly it there, NG must pay for the fuel and crew costs.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):

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.

Incorrect, the ones produced in Mobile will be around 60%

NG has said the KC-45 will have 52%, 57%, and 60% US content, as defined by parts, material, and labor. They also say the KC-45 will carry 226 passengers on one web page, and (up to) 280 passengers on another.

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

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/kc30tanker.html

NG is all over the map with their numbers, like 25,000, or 44,000 US jobs. But, NG isn't alone here, Boeing is also all over the map with numbers. This makes it very difficult to find true answers, and the USAF isn't helping much here, either.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
What a bunch of arrogent NG or EADS "consultants" and employees

You seem to have no trouble using Boeing employees in the past to represent your position, go back and think how you held General (Ret) Thomas Ryan up previously when we discussed this op-ed article http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bus...ument

I trust Gen. Ryan.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 102):
The public does not know the difference, but the USAF, GAO, NG, and we do. Those comments are designed to gain public support from the naive, and from naive politicians.

You are gaining no traction/support here by not understanding the content of the RFP/SRD, or by misrepresenting the facts.

At this point, I'm not sure who really knows the difference, a.netters, NG, USAF, or Boeing (and certinately not Congress), the public hasn't got a clue. I do understand the RFP, it was pretty straight foreward. NG originally protested that it was written for Boeing (and threatened to withdraw from KC-X). Boeing thinks it's interpetation eliminated them, but gave them several "pats on the head for effort".
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:09 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 110):
Both tankers are derived from a commercial application, so this is a non-issue at this point.

Not true. Boeing has extensive experience building tankers. Northrup Grumman does not. In fact there are more similarities. There is a convoluted supply chain for the NG tanker. People call the 767 the frankentanker but in reality it's the A330 that is being built piecemeal all over europe and then shipped here for assembly by a company that knows nothing about tankers.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:11 am

At last. A simple, incontravertible fact from Alien.

Yes, Boeing has extensive experience building tankers. Northrop Grumman does not have extensive experience.

However, the Boeing KC-767 and the KC-30/45 are not 'designed from the ground up' but are conversions of existing airliners - an area in which both companies have a similar degree of RECENT expertise.

Moreover, while Northrop Grumman and EADS may have no historic knowledge of tankers, they have more knowledge of modern generation tankers than Boeing does. There are two customers for the KC-767, with eight orders, and four aircraft entering service. Airbus has more customers, more orders, and more aircraft in service.

The supply chain for the KC-30 is no more convoluted than that for the 767 - in fact if you drew a 'spider web' of major assembly suppliers on a map of the world, that for the 330 would be MUCH smaller than that for the 767 - which stretches as far as Japan.

Moreover, people call the KC-767 the 'Frankentanker' not because it has an Italian tail and a Japanese fuselage but because it is an unproven hybrid incorporating elements from the 767-200, 767-300 and 767-400. The KC-45 is not a 'frankentanker' in that way.

NG are now joining the media war, and issued the following release, which is remarkably calm and factual, relying much less of hysteria and nationalistic/xenophobic posturing than Boeing's campaign.

Northrop Grumman KC-45: Why We Won -- Mission Capability

Highlighting Reasons the U.S. Air Force Selected the KC-45 Tanker as Best for Our Men and Women in Uniform

WASHINGTON - April 21, 2008 - The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman's (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing's in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman. Starting today and regularly in the coming weeks, "Why We Won" will provide detailed examples of why Northrop Grumman was selected, drawing on facts listed in a redacted version of a protected Air Force selection document. We begin with Mission Capability, which includes the crucial function of aerial refueling.

Mission Capability

The Air Force found the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides "Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases," "Better air refueling efficiency," "Better offload rate and receive rate," and has "A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing."

This means the Northrop Grumman plane can provide more fuel at greater range, is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission, can perform many refueling operations faster, and can connect to receivers over a greater volume of airspace behind the tanker than Boeing's aircraft.

In a written explanation of the Air Force thinking on this subject, Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisition officer, said the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman provided "Significant refueling advantages."

Payton added that Northrop Grumman's aircraft's "Refueling capability was compelling to my decision."

"Northrop Grumman's offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter," Payton wrote.

Despite this, Boeing's defenders in Congress are now demanding that the fair and transparent bidding process that led to the Northrop Grumman selection be overturned to ensure that Boeing is given the contract, in spite of the clear inferiority of the plane it offered to our men and women in uniform.

In fact, Boeing disagrees with the Air Force formula for air refueling efficiency that shows the winning Northrop Grumman tanker as six percent more efficient in relation to fuel delivered versus fuel consumed, so they invented their own.

As the Wall Street Journal concluded in a recent editorial, "There's a word for that, but it's not patriotism."
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:56 pm

Nice cut and paste Jack. How much did NG pay you to do it?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Nothing at all, Alien.

Interesting that your reaction is to attack the poster, rather than the content, but when the customer says that "the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides "Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases," "Better air refueling efficiency," "Better offload rate and receive rate," and has "A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing." it's hard to argue.

Northrop Grumman seem to have 'cut and pasted' directly from what Sue Payton, the Air Force's chief acquisition officer, said.

Which is that the Air Force has determined:

that Northrop Grumman provided "Significant refueling advantages."

that Northrop Grumman's aircraft's "Refueling capability was compelling to my decision."

and that:

"Northrop Grumman's offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter."
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:58 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 116):
Nothing at all, Alien.

Sure they didn't. We all know how megacompanies give people lots of money for posting stuff about them on forums.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:54 pm



Quoting Agill (Reply 117):
Sure they didn't. We all know how mega companies give people lots of money for posting stuff about them on forums.

Maybe I will submit my bank account number to A, B and anyone else who wants an over-optimistic post over their product (basically a lie) or an over-negative post about another manufacturers product (also a lie). Then I can stop working and start spreading lies all over the place. It might be a good idea! But serious: what a rubbish!

I am here on this forum as a fan of aviation and everything that has to do with it. If that sometimes means that A, B, C, D,or E is better than the product I like best, so be it. I do not like it, but after evaluating all information on my own, I can do the math. And I accept what the outcome was.

But sometimes people on this forum just can not stand to see their favorite loose, and when it does, then they start twisting facts, or putting them out of context, etc, etc. I for one sure hope that it is not a result of members being payed by an aircraft manufacturer. If I want to read their information, I will go to their websites instead of being here! Here I want to see personal opinions, hopefully supported by actual and verifiable facts!

Kind regards.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:20 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 116):

Interesting that your reaction is to attack the poster, rather than the content,

but Jack, you added nothing to it. Your post was merely a cut and paste of EADS propaganda. Why bother with the content when it's pure garbage (that's rubbish for you)?

Quoting Agill (Reply 117):
We all know how megacompanies give people lots of money for posting stuff about them on forums.

I am an engineer by trade. I own stock in both NG and Boeing amongst other companies. That is the extent of my financial interest. Jack on the other hand pals around with these guys in order to get the scoop. To insinuate he is getting paid in monetary terms is unjust.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 118):
But sometimes people on this forum just can not stand to see their favorite loose,

Once again you got it wrong. I too am a fan but I am an American first and my country's interest and my long term economic and security well being are affected. Those are my priorities. Taken as a whole the NG/EADS/GE deal is very bad for America. It's just that simple and that is why Congress is getting involved. The Air Force goofed. In order to ensure that there was competition they set up the evaluation process as to favor EADS/NG.

The only information you are getting from me is as a taxpayer. I do not directly benefit from any aerospace or defense company. That said

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 118):
Here I want to see personal opinions,

I don't care what you want. You and Jack and Agill are likely not paying for this deal. I and my fellow Americans are.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18501
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:29 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 119):
You and Jack and Agill are likely not paying for this deal.

But the theory is that us European tax payers are being screwed by the Socialist EU, to the tune of $billions, so that Airbus can sell subsidised planes. If that's the case, then we're helping to pay for your tankers!  smile 
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.
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:36 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 119):

I don't care what you want. You and Jack and Agill are likely not paying for this deal. I and my fellow Americans are.

I doubt sweden would gain much nomatter what the outcome of this deal is, I just thought it was a bit funny to insinuate that NG would pay anyone to post an ad on this forum.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:44 pm

Quoting Alien (Reply 119):
I don't care what you want. You and Jack and Agill are likely not paying for this deal. I and my fellow Americans are.

You are right two times.

First point: You do not have to care about what I want. I just stated what I want on this forum without any means of controlling this or making it happen. Nothing more, nothing less.

Second point: Also correct. I for sure are not paying for this deal. (only the slightest portion  of the RLI to develop the A330 at the time was probably funded out of taxes I pay. But since more of them have been sold then the RLI was to begin with, the sales success has now lowered my tax share in the EADS development fund).

That does not change the fact which plane is better as an airplane, also in this deal. I know the B767-AT has most likely a higher percentage of US value in it. That is probably not debatable. So we do not need to discuss that.

But many post which were written here on A-net in several threads by big fans of the Boeing company about this subject were about trying to make the B767-AT the better, more modern, more versatile, lower risk, less easy to shoot down, better take-off performance, incredible lower fuel consumption, bla, bla, bla plane.

All of those claims were replied to by many other A-net members. Maby (probably?) they were (are) Airbus biased, but usually they were giving more exact and verifiable data than the Boeing supporters did. Those were mostly shouting in anger (as Boeing is doing now with their Media Campaign) which was not helpful in a discussion.

And this data which was provided by the (maybe) A-fans, almost always proved the alleged superiority of the B767-AT to be non-existent as to the really existing superiority of the A330-MRTT based KC-45. Now no aircraft will ever win a comparison on all points, the KC-45 won while overall it is the better plane for the job. Some qualities of it will probably be inferior to the capabilities of the other, its competitor, but most of the qualities it has must have been better than those of the B767-AT, and also provided more satisfactory to the customers needs.

[Edited 2008-04-28 11:46:22]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:48 pm

234 of the 638 words were all mine, mostly pointing out the errors in your thinking.

For what it's worth I "pal around" with Boeing far more than I do with Airbus. Boeing are much better at PR and Press stuff than Airbus or Airbus mil are, have earned much more goodwill from me and I suspect would be much more likely to get their ducks in a row enough to pay an inducement, because they're more efficient in their press and PR activities. Airbus' payment would be five years late and would come in the form of branded bath soap.

Luckily they're better at building modern tankers than Boeing are!

But as far as I know, neither of the companies are silly enough to offer inducements to journos.

I would agree that a KC-767 buy would certainly be better for Boeing (and perhaps marginally better for US industry, generally), but worse for the USAF.

Because, as the USAF itself says: "Northrop Grumman provided "Significant refueling advantages."


and that:

"Northrop Grumman's offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter."
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:51 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 114):
There are two customers for the KC-767, with eight orders, and four aircraft entering service. Airbus has more customers, more orders, and more aircraft in service.

None of the A-310MRTTs or CC-150s in service were converted by NG. There are no KC-30s in service.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:35 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):
None of the A-310MRTTs or CC-150s in service were converted by NG. There are no KC-30s in service.

It's those pesky details again. So lets see NG has experience converting exactly zero airliners to tankers. Nah, no risk there.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13489
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:01 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 123):
Because, as the USAF itself says: "Northrop Grumman provided "Significant refueling advantages."

I think the main point that some of us are trying to make is that we do not trust the process the Air Force used to pick the new tanker, was it fair? was it in the best interest of the American people? We will have to await the decision of the GAO who are entrusted with looking out for the best interests of the American Taxpayer.
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 29, 2008 6:27 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
I think the main point that some of us are trying to make is that we do not trust the process the Air Force used to pick the new tanker, was it fair? was it in the best interest of the American people? We will have to await the decision of the GAO who are entrusted with looking out for the best interests of the American Taxpayer.

I submit this question here: Would you have asked yourself the same question if Boeing with its B767-AT would have won? I am under the impression that a lot of B-fans here and in other media are asking themselves this "was it fair" question. But if NG-EADS would have lost, as many (especially Boeing did this arrogantly) expected, I wonder how many B-fans would have asked themselves this same question? Especially with the rip-off lease deal Boeing proposed to the USAF a couple of years ago in mind.

Just my two cents.....

Kind regards
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18501
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:43 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
I think the main point that some of us are trying to make is that we do not trust the process the Air Force used to pick the new tanker, was it fair?

If Boeing had won, would the question even have been asked? The GAO will decide if the contest was fair.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
was it in the best interest of the American people?

Consideration of "the best interest of the American people" was not part of the RFP. The task of the AF to select the best tanker. Isn't giving the American military the best tools to do their job in the best interest of the American people?
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.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:35 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 123):
Because, as the USAF itself says: "Northrop Grumman provided "Significant refueling advantages."

I think the main point that some of us are trying to make is that we do not trust the process the Air Force used to pick the new tanker, was it fair? was it in the best interest of the American people? We will have to await the decision of the GAO who are entrusted with looking out for the best interests of the American Taxpayer.

And let's all remember that this is the very same Air Force that is currently under attack from Congress for not punishing AF officers for their role in imporpoerly steering a 50 million contract to a company run by (gasp) a recently retireed Air Force general.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 128):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
was it in the best interest of the American people?

Consideration of "the best interest of the American people" was not part of the RFP. The task of the AF to select the best tanker. Isn't giving the American military the best tools to do their job in the best interest of the American people?

Yes, but it also means that the contract must be awarded according to the rules in place - not by the fact that NG has hired more retired AF officers than Boeing has.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18501
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:25 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 129):
Yes, but it also means that the contract must be awarded according to the rules in place

Of course. If they didn't a) stick to the rules, or b) fairly evaluate the bids, then the GAO should tell the AF to start again.

However, I can't wait to see the response if the GAO rejects Boeing's protest.  smile 
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: 13489
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:05 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 127):



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 128):



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 130):

I understand your points, but the publicity generated by the awarding of the contract raised the Red flag, what is it now three contracts in a row to non-US companies? Now we have to wait and see, did the process go fairly? was the need there for a larger tanker? is the NG/EADS a better performer for the mission? Was Boeing careless and overconfident? or was it shaded to favor the company who had the most influence through who they had on their payroll? You fellows have to admit that is the way the system is supposed to work, he who does not watch, gets screwed. The GAO is the watchdog of the peoples pocketbook. We all know industrial influence is at work everywhere in this world, the defense industry is no exception. Airbus and Boeing all play the game. I do not think that the need for jobs is any less there, than here. I know where I want my tax dollars to go and so would you folks, it is only natural. We are all being screwed over everyday, I do not want it to get worse by a bunch of retired Air Force Generals looking for the big paycheck.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:11 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 113):
Not true. Boeing has extensive experience building tankers. Northrup Grumman does not. In fact there are more similarities. There is a convoluted supply chain for the NG tanker. People call the 767 the frankentanker but in reality it's the A330 that is being built piecemeal all over europe and then shipped here for assembly by a company that knows nothing about tankers.

Not knowing the facts doesn't do much to support your case.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:26 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 132):
Not knowing the facts doesn't do much to support your case.

Such as where do I not know my facts? Not knowing who you are talking too doesn't make you look too good.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13489
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:27 pm

[quote=Scbriml,reply=130]However, I can't wait to see the response if the GAO rejects Boeing's protest.



I agree, it will be interesting, especially if the GAO says the process was flawed and says Boeing was right to protest.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:28 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 133):
Such as where do I not know my facts? Not knowing who you are talking too doesn't make you look too good.

I will stand by my statement - either airframe will be a conversion of a commercial application. As long as the people who drive the planes for a living get a product that will deliver, I don't care how this goes. Boeing, who had the inside track from the start, made a big mistake with their offering. Now everything that comes out of their mouths has to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

I don't care who you are.
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:57 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 135):
Boeing, who had the inside track from the start, made a big mistake with their offering. Now everything that comes out of their mouths has to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

What big mistake was that, and why does everything that Boeing says have to be viewed with skepticism anymore so than NG or EADS or the Air Force for that matter?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:22 pm

Quoting M27 (Reply 136):
What big mistake was that, and why does everything that Boeing says have to be viewed with skepticism anymore so than NG or EADS or the Air Force for that matter?

Boeing wanted to milk the 767 for all that it is worth. Good business decision if the competition has a more or less equal product. Boeing "decided" that they would offer the 767 now and the 777 later so they could milk two lines.

Unfortunately, the Air Force looked at both airplanes, saw both had two wings, two engines and could be flown by the same number of crew. The difference - the NG aircraft could fly more further. So, Boeing gambles and loses, and now they want everyone to feel sorry for them.

Nothing is more telling than Boeing now saying they could have offered the 777 if the Air Force had requested that airplane. It was not the customer's place to specify which specific airplane that was to be offered. The Air Force correctly laid out the minimum specifications and left it to the competitors to decide which plane to offer.

The Boeing shareholders should be asking some very tough questions on how they lost a competition that was their to lose.

[Edited 2008-04-29 12:23:55]
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:18 pm

Thanks for your reply Gsosbee. I can see the points that you state. I would disagree about Boeing trying to get everyone to feel sorry for them, because they have lost a lot of contracts before and not protested, so I feel they think they really were in some way taken down the wrong road.

If I read your post correctly, you are saying that they offered the wrong aircraft for the competition, and as it has turned out, you certainly are correct. You believe that is because Boeing was just trying to prolong the life of the 767, and I feel that, while no doubt, they would love to do that, they would have in no way taken a chance on that if they had not felt it was the right one to offer. I guess we just disagree, and maybe some more information will come out in June.

Thanks again for your response! You stated your point well.

[Edited 2008-04-29 13:21:06]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:35 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 130):
However, I can't wait to see the response if the GAO rejects Boeing's protest.

Do you think the tone and volume of the outcry will be any different if they DO uphold the protest?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18501
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:58 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
Do you think the tone and volume of the outcry will be any different if they DO uphold the protest?

Certainly. NG will rightly be upset, but few others because the "evil French" will have been defeated.
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: 13489
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:31 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 140):
Certainly. NG will rightly be upset, but few others because the "evil French" will have been defeated

Well, I can certainly identify with that, they will get no sympathy here if the contract is overturned. I would not use the term "Evil", but we can say self serving as all countries and companies tend to be, some more than others. We are not above that ourselves, so we want the bulk of the work for our workers in the US. I think France would understand that more than most. My  twocents 
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:40 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 131):
I do not want it to get worse by a bunch of retired Air Force Generals looking for the big paycheck.

Well...you won't be buying ANY new acft or military equipment since you can't swing a dead cat in any of these major manufactures facilities without hitting a retired, General or other member of the service!
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:01 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 135):
either airframe will be a conversion of a commercial application.

A very extensive conversion. Do you understand that? All of the systems are hardened. Parts of the frame are strengthened. The floor is strengthened. Defensive counter measures are installed. Secure communications and nav systems are installed. An entire refueling system including a remote control boom and two drogues along with all the associated electronics and plumbing are added. I'm sure I missed a few things but I am sure you get the picture. This is not an airliner Sue Payton flies off the lot and delivers directly to the air force.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 135):
Now everything that comes out of their mouths has to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

But EADS, NG and the Air Force are telling nothing but the truth?

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 137):
Boeing "decided" that they would offer the 767 now and the 777 later so they could milk two lines.



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 137):
Boeing "decided" that they would offer the 767 now and the 777 later so they could milk two lines.

Wrong, Boeing was led to believe that the 767 was the right sized frame based on what the air force told them. If they thought they could sell another 179 B777 frames they would have offered it in a flash.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 137):
The Boeing shareholders should be asking some very tough questions on how they lost a competition that was their to lose.

They did. That's why the GAO and Congress is looking in to the deal.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
Do you think the tone and volume of the outcry will be any different if they DO uphold the protest?

Yup. Congress is going to have the last say. The deal goes beyond the Air Force and deals with issues as have a direct affect on our economic and technical well being, This is clearly the responsibility of our elected officials.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 140):
"evil French" will have been defeated.

I noticed lots of British here and elsewhere clinging to that delusion. I would suggest this conclusion is simplistic and false. Most people know full well the plane is just as British as it is French. Frankly it's not about the French and all about what is best for the US regardless of whether it's British or French or Martian for that matter.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 141):
so we want the bulk of the work for our workers in the US.

See what I mean.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:00 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
Do you think the tone and volume of the outcry will be any different if they DO uphold the protest?

If the GAO upholds the protest both A & B will get to work delivering a better offer. There may be some cries of "unfair" from NG/Airbus, but their main focus will be getting the contract the next time around.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 104):
Sure they get credit for extra... that was in the RFP... what was also in the RFP is that you dont get credit for what cant be used.

Interesting article and something that the USAF needs to address when going to Congress for the funds to take up the options.

If the article is correct (and it is only an article) then Congress has the responsibility of having the USAF fully defining any infrastructure upgrades that will be needed - and the funding that will be required. And the USAF had better be spot on with their numbers as Congress isn't going to accept changes later.

The other issue with infrastructure needs & abilities - if Congress determines that the NG/Airbus is a good offering, but limited in bases worldwide that can be used the USAF might be forced to look at multiple tanker sizes in order to maximize their ability to function worldwide. A queer option to be sure, but that might be the most pragmatic approach in the long run.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:03 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
The KC-135 is the first and only airplane designed from the beginning as a tanker. the KC-30/-45 is a varient of the A-330, and will always fly as an A-330 before it is converted to a tanker.

Based off the 707 airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
If any airplane is completed, before 1 October 2015, it cannot be delivered, as the USAF cannot pay for it, nor will they have the funding for flying hours or maintenance on it.

Of course they could deliver it. Also, if early delivery was available, thats an easy budgeting fix...not nearly as bad or as complicated as you make it to be.

Quoting Alien (Reply 113):
Boeing has extensive experience building tankers.

Well I have to disagree...they built the 135 off the 707 frame. Thats about it as far as mass produced tankers. I think in todays world, the ball could easily be in anyone's court here. I think Boeing blew it by not going above and beyond with the offer they presented, and while I do like NG/EADS offer, it does dissapoint me.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18501
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:18 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 143):
Wrong, Boeing was led to believe that the 767 was the right sized frame based on what the air force told them. If they thought they could sell another 179 B777 frames they would have offered it in a flash.

I don't recall seeing anything to support the theory the AF told Boeing the 767 was "the right size", but, given their current portfolio and the RFP's requirements, it was the only plane Boeing could realistically offer.

The fact is a 777 tanker would have failed to meet one or more RFP requirements. It would have also been massively more expensive than the KC-30. On the plus side, all the "booms in the air" and "booms on the ground" crap would have disappeared instantly.  wink 
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
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:48 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 146):
Quoting Alien (Reply 143):
Wrong, Boeing was led to believe that the 767 was the right sized frame based on what the air force told them. If they thought they could sell another 179 B777 frames they would have offered it in a flash.

Reply by Scbriml:
I don't recall seeing anything to support the theory the AF told Boeing the 767 was "the right size", but, given their current portfolio and the RFP's requirements, it was the only plane Boeing could realistically offer.

The fact is a 777 tanker would have failed to meet one or more RFP requirements. It would have also been massively more expensive than the KC-30. On the plus side, all the "booms in the air" and "booms on the ground" crap would have disappeared instantly.

You are 100% correct Scbriml. The B777 would have never won under the specifications of this RFP. Boeing knows that and offered the plane that scored better under the specifications of this RFP, the B767-AT.

But even the die-hard B-fans know this already because they have been told this numerous times on this forum by many well informed and highly respected members. Also not a single piece of evidence was presented that Boeing were to believed bla, bla, bla.
Still this mythical statement is put up on this forum over and over again. Maybe they think we will believe that the fantasy statement about "led to believe" is true if we hear it over and over again.

But the facts can not be twisted. For this RFP the A330-MRTT based KC-45 is the better plane for the next generation of USAF tanker aircraft. I am sure that in 10 years time a B787-3/8 will also make a great (even much better) platform for a tanker. And then an A350 could be considered too big if the specifications of the minimum requirements for a tanker plane would not change too much over that period of time.

Sadly enough for Boeing they just do not have the "perfect" plane for this RFP to offer at this time. They blew the B767 chances a long time ago with the earlier corrupt lease deal. If that deal had gone through, all the events we are discussing right now, would never have happened. But since that deal did not go through, we are discussing these developments.

And now we are a couple of years further in time and see that the times have changed. The even the better B767-AT (I admit that this is not a proven fact since this hybrid plane (Frankentanker) does not exist yet, but compared to the basic specs of the B767earlier offered to the USAF in the former lease deal, I believe it is a better offer to the USAF) is beaten by an even better product, the A330-MRTT. Of that plane the basic design version is already flying, though still modifications to it will have to made, but to a much and much lesser extend than to the B767-AT.

The NG-EADS combination just offers the right plane at the right time, and therefore their bid won the USAF evaluation!

[Edited 2008-04-30 03:51:35]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:23 pm

Alien thanks for agreeing that both airplanes are conversions. Now if we can move on with the rules of the game - the Air Force set the minimums. Boeing felt that either (a) the 767 met the minimums or (b) knew the 777 could not meet the minimums. Bottom line, Boeing made the choice. They knew what the competition was offering and gambled that they could get by with the 767 (thus saving that line.) Strictly a commercial decision.

The impact of Boeing's actions after the protest are beginning to really put a wedge into Boeing/Air Force relations. Boeing had a right to protest. The issue is the language and slamming of the Air Force.
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:50 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 147):
You are 100% correct Scbriml. The B777 would have never won under the specifications of this RFP. Boeing knows that and offered the plane that scored better under the specifications of this RFP, the B767-AT.

I think one of the questions is how many times the Air Force had to change the RFP in order to get the KC 45 to be the "perfect plane". What all changes did they have to make to keep EADS/NG in the RFP so they would not have a single source selection.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 147):
Sadly enough for Boeing they just do not have the "perfect" plane for this RFP to offer at this time. They blew the B767 chances a long time ago with the earlier corrupt lease deal. If that deal had gone through, all the events we are discussing right now, would never have happened

And the Air Force would have been a heck of lot better off if the deal had gone through. I think we need to check this current deal for corruptness.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 147):
But even the die-hard B-fans know this already because they have been told this numerous times on this forum by many well informed and highly respected members

Such as? All the Airbus kool aid drinkers!!!
Oh, I'm not anti-airbus, I'm just pro Boeing, and we were all told over on the civil avi. forum by a couple of " you guessed it, Pro Airbus posters' that it was OK to be pro something-just not anti anything. If they walked the walk instead of just talking the talk, then people would be more inclined to listen.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 148):
The impact of Boeing's actions after the protest are beginning to really put a wedge into Boeing/Air Force relations. Boeing had a right to protest. The issue is the language and slamming of the Air Force.

The Air Force apparently needs a little slamming. Remember, in the "corrupt", as some always like to remind, tanker lease, the Air Force was just as corrupt as Boeing, if not more so.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 148):
Now if we can move on with the rules of the game - the Air Force set the minimums. Boeing felt that either (a) the 767 met the minimums or (b) knew the 777 could not meet the minimums.

Yes, the Air Force was pretty selective for sure!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 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