Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:46 pm

The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winner offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest.
News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7582502

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:25 am

Well now, this is a fly in the ointment, idn't it.  Smile
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:57 am

Hmmmm...the case for a re-evaluation is building and the AIr Force may be forced to wait longer for it's refuellers.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
CX747
Posts: 6240
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:18 am

The hits just keep on coming for this program! I can't see the purchase of KC-45s going through in this election year. With the US economy lagging, neither party wants to stand behind a deal that will be shown as sending work overseas. Can we please RESTART with a fresh draft of what the USAF wants and get down to it?

I'm sure this has been touched on before, but if the competition is redone, can Boeing offer the 777 or 787?

[Edited 2008-06-15 19:45:23]
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:25 am



Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
Can we please RESTART with a fresh draft of what the USAF wants and get down to it?

This really seems like it needs to be done.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
I'm sure this has been touched on before, but if the competition is redone, can Boeing offer the 777 or 787?

It seems to me like all the offerings are overkill for a lot of the missions involved... they're all just too big. 767, 330, 777, 787, etc... Heck, the 777 is bigger than the KC-10.


It seems to me like the ideal choice would be a mixed fleet... maybe, say, 737s and 777s. 737s for the light day to day work and 777s for the heavy duty lifting. Later on down the road when the KC-10s are replaced, more 777s could be ordered to replace them. Furthermore, with the majority of the refuelers purchased being of the 737 variety, it would allow for much greater numbers to be bought to replace the all the KC-135s as time goes by.

A 767 or A330 as our smallest tanker is just too much airplane for the job. Its a waste of money.
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:43 am

 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:06 am



Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winner offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest.
News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest.

Are we talking a whole new competition or the more expedient move of allowing that Boeing did win the contract on the merits of its submission? Going through a whole new competition is going to take time and, from where I sit, waste a lot of money. If the GAO rules in favor of Boeing, then let Boeing get going on producing the much needed tankers.

My question though is: Who in the Air Force found and admitted the error(s)? Who at Northrop confirmed the error(s)? Has Northrop stopped construction of the plant down in Alabama? I believe ground was broken recently, was it not?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:23 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
If the GAO rules in favor of Boeing, then let Boeing get going on producing the much needed tankers.

I don't believe the GAO can rule in favour of Boeing in the way you're suggesting.

All they can do is say the Air Force's evaluation of the bids was flawed. The AF then has to decide what to do about that. AFAIK, the GAO cannot tell the AF "You have to buy KC-767s."

If the GAO upholds Boeing's appeal, the most likely outcome is a new RFP and competition.
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
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:44 am

I've the impression Boeing & friends are boasting minor calculation "errors"or approaches to create the feeling something has gone totally wrong & needs to be reconsidered.

Many folks even don't care if it are serious errors / misinterpretations or not, anything goes..

Thing is even if there was another competition, the KC30 would still come out on top.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/business/links/tanker26.gif

The KC767 even in its new form is inferior while costing the same, while a KC777 would be prohibitive expensive & heavy meaning less booms in the air (KC777 would not meet 7.000ft runway restriction like KC767 & KC30 anyway (a 777LRF needs 11.000).

Only "solution" would be to somehow prevent NG/EADS from competing to make sure Boeing gets the deal, as many suggested in the US press.

Boeing could then not only tell but also dictate what the USAF needs. It would also prevent Boeing getting national competition, FEDEX/UPS etc. might like the Alabama 332F). A400's assembled in Mobile sounds ugly too.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:28 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Thing is even if there was another competition, the KC30 would still come out on top.

This is based upon your biased opinion.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The KC767 even in its new form is inferior while costing the same, while a KC777 would be prohibitive expensive & heavy meaning less booms in the air (KC777 would not meet 7.000ft runway restriction like KC767 & KC30 anyway (a 777LRF needs 11.000).

You can't use one argument against one aircraft and then turn around and take the opposite stance against another...
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:57 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
(KC777 would not meet 7.000ft runway restriction like KC767 & KC30 anyway (a 777LRF needs 11.000).

B.S. KC777 can get the aero dynamic improvement just as KC767 and KC30. an A330 with CF engine at MTOW needs 10,500 ft runway at ISA and sea level condition.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):

I've the impression Boeing & friends are boasting minor calculation "errors"or approaches to create the feeling something has gone totally wrong & needs to be reconsidered.

That minor calculation error ends up causing AF to buy the more expensive option for capacity it does not really need.

Like your argument, KC30

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
would be prohibitive expensive & heavy meaning less booms in the air

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:06 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 9):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Thing is even if there was another competition, the KC30 would still come out on top.

This is based upon your biased opinion.

The baised opinion of the USAF / DoD and 4 other Air Froces. http://blog.al.com/pr/2007/07/KC-30_spider_chart.jpg

Quoting N328KF (Reply 9):
You can't use one argument against one aircraft and then turn around and take the opposite stance against another...

 Confused

The KC767 and KC30 meet the requirement and the KC777 would not.

Let Boeing rewrite the specification (again) might solve issues, if McCain minds his won business. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html

I think this is a sad story.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:31 pm



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 4):
It seems to me like the ideal choice would be a mixed fleet... maybe, say, 737s and 777s. 737s for the light day to day work and 777s for the heavy duty lifting. Later on down the road when the KC-10s are replaced, more 777s could be ordered to replace them. Furthermore, with the majority of the refuelers purchased being of the 737 variety, it would allow for much greater numbers to be bought to replace the all the KC-135s as time goes by.

Just out of info:

Why would you or anyone (including me) know any better what USAF needs then USAF???
Why are people here running around telling hundreds of specialists in USAF weapon system procurement dept. what they should do?
I know here are enough people with a lot of knowledge and speculation is very welcome. But anyway one should be so realistic to accept USAF insiders do know BETTER what they need. Better as you and me, better as Boeing and better as NG/EADS. Therefore they asked for a tanker with certain specs and got the offers.

Where is the big deal?
And finally: Its absolutely ridiculous to find a 34Mio dollar mistake in a 108 billion dollar calculation as it is anyway only a prediction and in no way as accurate as it looks to be.

That isn't any anti-US anti Boeing statement...I don't give shit what the US is flying around to conquer the globe (  Wink )...just one out of common sense.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:40 pm



Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
I'm sure this has been touched on before, but if the competition is redone, can Boeing offer the 777 or 787?

I think the 777 will be looked at to replace the DC-10 tankers but is probably pretty large to replace the 707 tankers. What i had heard before was that while the A330 was slightly more capable it was larger and would require upgrades to hangars etc to accommodate the A330 tanker. I could actually see this order going to Boeing, who knows maybe if the AF did order the 777 in the future it would be good commonality like in commercial airlines.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:18 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10):
That minor calculation error ends up causing AF to buy the more expensive option for capacity it does not really need.

I believe that someone took the entire discussion out of context. The measure in question marginally favored Boeing on a cost v. cost basis. However when you factor in the increased carrying ability the Airbus comes out the winner on a pound hauled/dollar spent basis. Also, there seems to be no question that the Airbus airplane's flow rates are greater.

I still contend that the only show stopper for Airbus will be if the GAO found someone inside the AF process (not the flying generals) who told Boeing they could not offer the 777.

At least by this time next week we will know the outcome and will be dealing with the Congressional fallout.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:29 pm



Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
I'm sure this has been touched on before, but if the competition is redone, can Boeing offer the 777 or 787?

That would depend on how the RFP would be written. What a lot of people here seem to get confused on is the Rand Corp. recommendations to the USAF on tanker sizes. They broke out the different sizes in different weights than the FAA does, and the USAF seems to have bought it..

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
Are we talking a whole new competition or the more expedient move of allowing that Boeing did win the contract on the merits of its submission? Going through a whole new competition is going to take time and, from where I sit, waste a lot of money. If the GAO rules in favor of Boeing, then let Boeing get going on producing the much needed tankers.

If the GAO report has almost anything negitive, you will see a new compitition. If the contract was simply re-awarded to Boeing, you will see NG/EADS bringing the USAF, and GAO into court in a breach of contract federal law suit.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
Has Northrop stopped construction of the plant down in Alabama? I believe ground was broken recently, was it not?

No, the construction is not scheduled to begin until after the GAO report is out.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
All they can do is say the Air Force's evaluation of the bids was flawed. The AF then has to decide what to do about that. AFAIK, the GAO cannot tell the AF "You have to buy KC-767s."

That is correct. But, that then puts the ball in Congress's court. They simply will not fund the USAF/NG/EADS KC-45A contract.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Thing is even if there was another competition, the KC30 would still come out on top.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The KC767 even in its new form is inferior while costing the same, while a KC777 would be prohibitive expensive & heavy meaning less booms in the air (KC777 would not meet 7.000ft runway restriction like KC767 & KC30 anyway (a 777LRF needs 11.000).

You already have read the new RFP? Trust me, if a new RFP is needed, it will be a complete re-write of the KC-45A RFP. If the KC-45A contract is killed, or unfunded, look for the USAF to ask Congress to fund re-engining the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs as an interium measure.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I've the impression Boeing & friends are boasting minor calculation "errors"or approaches to create the feeling something has gone totally wrong & needs to be reconsidered.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
The baised opinion of the USAF / DoD and 4 other Air Froces. http://blog.al.com/pr/2007/07/KC-30_...t.jpg

DOD did not select the KC-45A, and what about the Italian Air Force and JASDF?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
I think this is a sad story.

I agree.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 13):
What i had heard before was that while the A330 was slightly more capable it was larger and would require upgrades to hangars etc to accommodate the A330 tanker.

That is correct. In fact, the KC-45A will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory, second only to the C-5A/B/C/M. The KC-45A has a longer wingspan than even the VC-25A/E-4B.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 14):
I believe that someone took the entire discussion out of context. The measure in question marginally favored Boeing on a cost v. cost basis. However when you factor in the increased carrying ability the Airbus comes out the winner on a pound hauled/dollar spent basis.

Good point, but that is not in the specs.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 14):
Also, there seems to be no question that the Airbus airplane's flow rates are greater.

Since large USAF airplanes (B-52, C-5, C-17, VC-25/E-4, etc.) can only onload fuel at a max rate of 7,000lbs per minute, that is a wasted capability.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 14):
I still contend that the only show stopper for Airbus will be if the GAO found someone inside the AF process (not the flying generals) who told Boeing they could not offer the 777.

If that is true, look for that individual(s) to spend time in jail.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 14):
At least by this time next week we will know the outcome and will be dealing with the Congressional fallout.

Maybe, but I have this gut feeling it may take until mid July or August before we see the GAO report. Congress can extend the investigation.
 
CX747
Posts: 6240
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:51 am

This overall program has been a joke from the beginning. It is too bad that the guys and gals on the front lines can't get some honest to god new metal out on the ramp. The USAF has not screwed up tanker renewal process once but twice. It is almost like a referee making one bad call and then another to make up for it.

As I stated earlier, I don't see this contract being awarded to EADS/NG at this point in time. Both political parties aren't going to stand for a contract being awarded to what will be sold as a "European" design etc.

What the USAF needs to do is sit down and figure out exactly what they want. One RFP to any and all manufacturers stating the necessary goals.

While it would never happen, I would love to see Boeing offer the 787. State of the art technology and a platform that could grow in many different ways.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:31 am



Quoting CX747 (Reply 16):
What the USAF needs to do is sit down and figure out exactly what they want. One RFP to any and all manufacturers stating the necessary goals.

They already have and people are not happy with the award.

If there is a rebid and Boeing wins that one, the whole process starts over with NG protesting.

If they limit the RFP to American manufacturers only, no one will qualify as there is significant foreign content in the Boeing planes. If they "fix" the bid to where only Boeing will qualify McCain will go berserk again and stop the process.

The mixed buy proposition is still out there and looking better everyday. Congress can appropriate all the money that would be required. In addition to getting new airplanes to the guys who need them ASAP, they could use the first split contract to verify each manufacturers processes for the next batch of the "smaller" refulers.

All in all it is a sad deal.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:42 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
DOD did not select the KC-45A, and what about the Italian Air Force and JASDF?

They approved the porcess.

Italian Air Force and JASDF selected the KC767 before the KC30 was in the market. Looking how those 2 projects are "progressing" they no doubt have been thinking about the whole thing..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Since large USAF airplanes (B-52, C-5, C-17, VC-25/E-4, etc.) can only onload fuel at a max rate of 7,000lbs per minute, that is a wasted capability.

Speed has value & the USAf is thinkingabout the next 40 years, not the past 40 yrs. Limitting the flow is easier then increasing it. Apart from that the EADS is flying / tested while the Boeing boom is a paper one.. What would you do?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The KC767 even in its new form is inferior while costing the same, while a KC777 would be prohibitive expensive & heavy meaning less booms in the air (KC777 would not meet 7.000ft runway restriction like KC767 & KC30 anyway (a 777LRF needs 11.000).

You already have read the new RFP? Trust me, if a new RFP is needed, it will be a complete re-write of the KC-45A RFP. If the KC-45A contract is killed, or unfunded, look for the USAF to ask Congress to fund re-engining the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs as an interium measure.

The 7000 ft runway is what the USAF requires. It has been published for years. Its what the KC135 require & bases are based upon. "According to the RFP, the KC-X must be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level up to its maximum gross weight for takeoff." http://www.gregorypcook.com/Library/...nker%20-%20ATQ%20Winter%202007.pdf

The 777LRF can not do it with the required load. Clear showstopper if you ask me.

Letting Boeing rewrite the spec to fit the KC767 was done in 2002. People got convicted. On top of that the operational requirements of the USAF should perhaps also play a role.

I have the feeling Boeing is pretty confident of themselves. Pulling through the mud / accusing your #1 supplier / national air force this way, shortly after you praised the open and objective process, takes a lot of self-esteem and disrespect.

It also takes a strong believe to turn a blind eye on everything to support the protest I guess.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:44 pm

I have been perplexed by this 7000 ft runway requirement and debate on the subject. The AoA listed a number of aircraft to be considered besides the 767 & A330 such as the 777, 747, A340 & 787. Yet it appears that all of them except the A330 (how about the 787?) would not meet this 7000 ft MTOW runway requirement. If true, then the competition is not really a competition and the A330 is the only logical winner? This requirement seems unrealistic.

Can anyone answer if the KC-135E meets this same 7000 ft requirement? How about the KC-135R?

Thanks...
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:54 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 19):

Can anyone answer if the KC-135E meets this same 7000 ft requirement? How about the KC-135R?

Highly doubtful

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 19):
I have been perplexed by this 7000 ft runway requirement and debate on the subject.

I am aswell. How many tanker bases have 7000ft runways? I can't think of any... 9000 is about the shortest I can think of, with many in the 11-12000ft range.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:38 pm



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 20):
How many tanker bases have 7000ft runways? I can't think of any... 9000 is about the shortest I can think of, with many in the 11-12000ft range.

That's today. The AF is buying tankers to operate for the next 40+ years. Why not ask for a plane with better performance that you can deploy to even more airports/bases with shorter runways? Why restrict yourself to "old world" thinking?
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.
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:26 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
The 777LRF can not do it with the required load. Clear showstopper if you ask me.

B.S.

Even standard A332 can't do MTOW from 7000ft. It needs 10500 ft at sea level ISA with GE engine. Why do you think boeing can't do the same improvement to the 777F to achieve short field performance improvments similar to A330 to KC-30.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10292
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:47 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 22):


Even standard A332 can't do MTOW from 7000ft. It needs 10500 ft at sea level ISA with GE engine. Why do you think boeing can't do the same improvement to the 777F to achieve short field performance improvments similar to A330 to KC-30.

And just how inefficient would THAT be? People are claiming that the KC-45 provides more than is needed and is therefore inefficient, why would you use an engine that big and powerful for a de-rated aircraft?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:45 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 23):
And just how inefficient would THAT be? People are claiming that the KC-45 provides more than is needed and is therefore inefficient, why would you use an engine that big and powerful for a de-rated aircraft?

Just like airbus can improve A330 from 10,500 ft runway to 7000 ft on the KC-30. I think the transformation is more on the high lift package rather than engine and weight derate.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:04 pm



Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
overseas. Can we please RESTART with a fresh draft of what the USAF wants and get down to it?

I'm sure this has been touched on before, but if the competition is redone, can Boeing offer the 777 or 787?

Honestly, I doubt that there would be any new competition. I believe EADS will not and should not assist in a token competition. There is no point, IMHO, it would be obvious that no matter
what they won't be allowed to win.

If I were the EADS head the day after the deal is canceled I would head to China and sign the
multi-billion dollar deal that was partly held back because of the tanker bid. And let the US Airforce pay the highest possible price for KC767 (no competition).
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:18 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
"According to the RFP, the KC-X must be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level up to its maximum gross weight for takeoff."

At MTOW, I don't believe any aircraft in contention for the KC-X would meet that requirement. On the other thread, "Boeing Appeal of KC-45A Award Pt. II", it was claimed that the KC-30 can take off "fully loaded" from 7,000 ft., but that quote was attributed to an NG/EADS advertisement. But "fully loaded" does not mean MTOW, so I think that claim by NG/EADS has had its intended affect, which is to make someone not paying attention to think that the airplane can take off at MTOW in just 7,000 ft.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:36 pm

Unless I've missed it, does anyone have the actual RFP? Lowest bidder may not even be an issue.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:01 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
If they "fix" the bid to where only Boeing will qualify McCain will go berserk again and stop the process.

McCain is trying to distance himself from this entire affair as much as possible leading up to the November elections. And for good reason because the Dems have jumped on this as one of McCain's Achilles Heels.

Quote:
On Monday, the Democratic National Committee again accused Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, of helping to "steer a tanker contract to a European company for which his campaign advisors then lobbied, shipping tens of thousands of American jobs overseas."

McCain led a probe that ultimately resulted in the collapse of an earlier Air Force deal to lease Boeing tankers, a plan auditors said would have cost taxpayers $5 billion more than an outright purchase. A senior Air Force official and Boeing's former finance chief served prison time for the plan.

McCain wrote letters urging a fair and competitive bidding process, but insists that was the extent of his involvement.

Critics say the role of McCain's advisers raise an appearance of impropriety. They point to lobbyist Thomas Loeffler, a former Republican member of Congress from Texas who was McCain's campaign co-chairman but resigned from the campaign after reports showed he was also a lobbyist for EADS.

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Gover...-in-Sight-for-US-Tanker-Dispute/1/

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
The 7000 ft runway is what the USAF requires. It has been published for years.

Keesje, what you reference is not the RFP and in fact pre-dates the actual RFP by some months. What does the final draft of the actual RFP state???
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:10 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
Lowest bidder may not even be an issue.

Price was not one of the main selection criteria.
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.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:05 pm

In the RFP, Section 3.2.1.1.4.1 it states:
"The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft. dry, hard surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules."

In section 3.2.1.1.4.2 the word "shall" is changed to "should" and the words "maximum takeoff weight" are added.

In the first statement the word "shall" means that the aircraft has to be able to take off from a 7,000 foot runway but there is no mention that it has to be at MTOW.

In the second statement the word "should" means that it would be good if it could do it at MTOW but that it is not a requirement, merely an objective.

I hope this clears up the question of take off performance from a 7,000 foot runway.

J

[Edited 2008-06-17 15:07:16]
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:15 pm



Quoting Arluna (Reply 30):
In the RFP, Section 3.2.1.1.4.1 it states:
"The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft. dry, hard surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules."

In section 3.2.1.1.4.2 the word "shall" is changed to "should" and the words "maximum takeoff weight" are added.

In the first statement the word "shall" means that the has to be able to take off from a 7,000 foot runway but there is no mention that it has to be at MTOW.

In the second statement the word "should" means that it would be good if it could do it at MTOW but that it is not a requirement, merely an objective.

I hope this clears up the question of take off performance from a 7,000 foot runway.

Yes it does...this issue has been repeatedly mentioned as a reason the 767, 777, A340 or 747 could not be competitive. Thank you for clearing this up.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:27 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 31):
Yes it does...this issue has been repeatedly mentioned as a reason the 767, 777, A340 or 747 could not be competitive.

Don't forget to add the A330 to that list.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:36 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10):
An A330 with CF engine at MTOW needs 10,500 ft runway at ISA and sea level condition.

Incorrect, QF/JQ do it on a daily basis, and I know we do it on a daily basis at MTOW even at ISA+20 with the RR engines on the A333.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10):
an A330 with CF engine at MTOW needs 10,500 ft runway at ISA and sea level condition.

Incorrect, see above

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
That is correct. In fact, the KC-45A will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory, second only to the C-5A/B/C/M. The KC-45A has a longer wingspan than even the VC-25A/E-4B.

They cut some of the wing off the YAL-1 when I was not looking ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Good point, but that is not in the specs.

Yes it was, section M started off with "capability based, best value source selection"

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 19):
I have been perplexed by this 7000 ft runway requirement and debate on the subject. The AoA listed a number of aircraft to be considered besides the 767 & A330 such as the 777, 747, A340 & 787. Yet it appears that all of them except the A330 (how about the 787?) would not meet this 7000 ft MTOW runway requirement. If true, then the competition is not really a competition and the A330 is the only logical winner? This requirement seems unrealistic.

Can anyone answer if the KC-135E meets this same 7000 ft requirement? How about the KC-135R?

The requirement was for any of the aircraft to takeoff from 7000´ which just about any jet can do with a light load. The objective was for a takeoff in that distance at MTOW.

The requirement and objective are two different points.

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 20):
How many tanker bases have 7000ft runways? I can't think of any... 9000 is about the shortest I can think of, with many in the 11-12000ft range.

Bases which the KC-767AT could not take a full fuel payload from, and the KC-30 could include Aviano, Akrotiri , Brize Norton, Fairford, Heraklion, Mildenhall and Sigonella.

These would not be the bases which the tankers are "based", it is where they may operate from when deployed away from their base in the US.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 22):
Even standard A332 can't do MTOW from 7000ft. It needs 10500 ft at sea level ISA with GE engine. Why do you think boeing can't do the same improvement to the 777F to achieve short field performance improvments similar to A330 to KC-30.

Incorrect regarding the KC-30, see above.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 24):
Just like airbus can improve A330 from 10,500 ft runway to 7000 ft on the KC-30. I think the transformation is more on the high lift package rather than engine and weight derate.

Incorrect regarding the KC-30, see above.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 26):
At MTOW, I don't believe any aircraft in contention for the KC-X would meet that requirement. On the other thread, "Boeing Appeal of KC-45A Award Pt. II", it was claimed that the KC-30 can take off "fully loaded" from 7,000 ft., but that quote was attributed to an NG/EADS advertisement. But "fully loaded" does not mean MTOW, so I think that claim by NG/EADS has had its intended affect, which is to make someone not paying attention to think that the airplane can take off at MTOW in just 7,000 ft.

from http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2007/issue_30.htm (which is not an advert)

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

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
Unless I've missed it, does anyone have the actual RFP?

Yes i have it, and it is not just one file.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 28):
Keesje, what you reference is not the RFP and in fact pre-dates the actual RFP by some months. What does the final draft of the actual RFP state???

As I listed above.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 31):

Yes it does...this issue has been repeatedly mentioned as a reason the 767, 777, A340 or 747 could not be competitive. Thank you for clearing this up.

The A340 in most cases has better runway performance than the 767-200ER/300ER/400ER when you go for TOGA at MTOW compared to a 767-200ER/300ER/400ER at MTOW, it is not the runway hog people make it out to be, what most people get to see is a derated/assumed temp takeoff.

Likewise I think the 744 even has better performance than the 767-400ER.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10292
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC

Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:53 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 31):
Yes it does...this issue has been repeatedly mentioned as a reason the 767, 777, A340 or 747 could not be competitive.

Don't forget to add the A330 to that list.

Well I suspect he didn't include it because it won the competition, thus defining itself as competitive.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:55 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

Ah, finally, an answer! Thanks for providing it, Zeke. So it's apparent that neither airframe can take off at MTOW in 7,000 feet of runway.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:01 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
That is correct. In fact, the KC-45A will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory, second only to the C-5A/B/C/M. The KC-45A has a longer wingspan than even the VC-25A/E-4B.

They cut some of the wing off the YAL-1 when I was not looking ?

The YAL-1A is not a USAF inventory aircraft, yet. It is still under the control of the contractors. It may never be, just as the last built B-767-400ER (E-10A) will not be a USAF inventory airplane.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
The A340 in most cases has better runway performance than the 767-200ER/300ER/400ER when you go for TOGA at MTOW compared to a 767-200ER/300ER/400ER at MTOW, it is not the runway hog people make it out to be, what most people get to see is a derated/assumed temp takeoff.

You need the full story here, Zeke. The A-340-200/-300 are runway pigs, while the -500 nad the model you fly, the -600 are have very good T/O performance. Any model of the B-767 easily out performs the A-340-200/-300s as far as amount of runway used at MTOW. While the opposite is true for the much later A-340-500/-600.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
Likewise I think the 744 even has better performance than the 767-400ER.

Correct.

[Edited 2008-06-17 17:03:26]
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:41 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 27):
Unless I've missed it, does anyone have the actual RFP?

Yes i have it, and it is not just one file.

Excellent, please post it for us so we can all take a look at it...Thanks.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:21 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

This is an interesting clarification. My past understanding from what has been posted here (and elsewhere) was that the KC-30 could take-off at MTOW in 7,000 ft. My mistake.

When I looked at Boeing's performance numbers for the 747-400ERF and 777LR - they both could lift more than 245,000 lbs of fuel off a 7,000 ft runway. This statement was derived from performance charts provided by Boeing on their web-site. They do not represent a final USAF configuration but they give you a good idea of what they can "approximately" lift with 7,000 ft of runway. (Please remember these are rough estimates).

767-200ER with GE CF-6-80C2B4 engines - standard day - sea level - 175,000 lbs fuel when you allow for an OEW of 185,000 lbs. Calculated TOW is 360,000 lbs

777-200LR with GE90-110B1 - standard day - sea level - 325,000 lbs fuel when you allow for an OEW of 310,000 lbs. Calculated TOW is 635,000 lbs.

747-400ERF with GE CF-6-80C2B5F engines - standard day - sea level - 397,000 lbs fuel when you allow for an OEW 362,400 lbs. Calculated TOW is 760,000 lbs.

767-200ER with 6,000 ft of runway - a 140,000 lb fuel load.
777LR with 6000 ft of runway - a 265,000 lb fuel load.
747-400ERF with 6000 ft runway - a 307,600 lb fuel load.
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:22 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 33):
Incorrect, QF/JQ do it on a daily basis, and I know we do it on a daily basis at MTOW even at ISA+20 with the RR engines on the A333.

That's according to Airbus's chart. So Airbus's chart is wrong? Which airports does QF operate out of with A332 with 7000 ft field at MTOW of 230 tonnes or CX for that matter?

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:51 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 35):
Ah, finally, an answer! Thanks for providing it, Zeke. So it's apparent that neither airframe can take off at MTOW in 7,000 feet of runway.

Add full fuel to the empty weight of the passenger A330 and see what you come up with.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
YAL-1A is not a USAF inventory aircraft

I thought it was assigned to the 417th Flight Test Squadron.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
The A-340-200/-300 are runway pigs, while the -500 nad the model you fly, the -600 are have very good T/O performance.

I mainly fly the -300, which has better runway performance than the -600, the takeoff speeds are lower than the -600 that is the main factor in runway performance.

I think you are confusing climb and takeoff performance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Any model of the B-767 easily out performs the A-340-200/-300s as far as amount of runway used at MTOW.

I was very specific with the models I used, the 767-200/767-300 uses less runway than the A340, but the ER models it is a different story from what I understand. Naturally I am thinking of the currently offerered models with the high weights, not the initial aircraft that came into service (767-200ER went from 335,000 lb to 395,000 lb MTOW which is heavier than some 767-300ERs, likewise the 767-300ER went from 380,000 lb to 412,000 lb)

With twins as you increase weights (and hence thrust) they need to increase takeoff speeds to maintain control in the event of OEI, it is that increase in speed which increases the runway distance, as V1 is increased, the distance to V1 is increased, takeoff distance is increased.

When you have a 767-200ER operated at weights and thrust the same as the 767-300ER, but with the shorter moment arm from the CG to the rudder, you would need higher speeds to get the same aerodynamic control, higher speeds means more runway distance.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 37):
Excellent, please post it for us so we can all take a look at it...Thanks

Tell me how to post files.....

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 39):
That's according to Airbus's chart. So Airbus's chart is wrong? Which airports does QF operate out of with A332 with 7000 ft field at MTOW of 230 tonnes or CX for that matter?

Please care to share that chart ?

What you said is that the the A332 "needs 10500 ft at sea level ISA with GE engine", what I said is that QF does that on a daily basis (e.g. RW 16L at SYD is under 8000´). We operate now at ISA+20 days out of HKG at MTOW as well without difficulty, which is about the same as operating from 2500´altutide at ISA.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:42 pm



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 4):
It seems to me like the ideal choice would be a mixed fleet... maybe, say, 737s and 777s. 737s for the light day to day work and 777s for the heavy duty lifting. Later on down the road when the KC-10s are replaced, more 777s could be ordered to replace them. Furthermore, with the majority of the refuelers purchased being of the 737 variety, it would allow for much greater numbers to be bought to replace the all the KC-135s as time goes by.

A 767 or A330 as our smallest tanker is just too much airplane for the job. Its a waste of money.

With all due respect, why would replace a KC 135 with a piece of crap A/C like a 737? 737 are under powered, slow and do not have the legs to be a good tanker. The A330 is a good ideal as a replacement tanker for the KC 135, it has improve payload and range. Let's keep the 737 doing the job it dose best, being a cattle car for Southwest.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:13 pm

I cant believe you guys are still at this - the KC45 won it - get over it. Its the best plane for the job because the review committee says so, and they know better than anyone here what it can do and what it cannot do. You can pontificate all you want but nobody knows as well as they do and they chose the NG/Airbus offering.

You just want it overturned because you cannot stomach the idea that your military is flying Airbus tankers - so much for free trade and commerce eh?
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:16 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
Please care to share that chart ?

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A330.pdf

Page 61/298 for the GE ISA condition

Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
We operate now at ISA+20 days out of HKG at MTOW as well without difficulty

According to the chart you need ~10,600 ft runway for ISA+15 at 230tonnes TOW with A330 with RR. HKG is 12,500. Notice that in general RR has better take off performance than GE according to airbus's chart

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:29 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 35):
Ah, finally, an answer! Thanks for providing it, Zeke. So it's apparent that neither airframe can take off at MTOW in 7,000 feet of runway.

Add full fuel to the empty weight of the passenger A330 and see what you come up with.

So does that put it at MTOW and will it take off in 7,000 feet of runway at that weight? I want you, or somebody, to say definitively that at MTOW the KC-30 can take off on a 7,000 ft runway.

That is not a very difficult statement to say with clarity, yet no one seems to be able to say it with regards to the KC-30. All I've read thus far is that the KC-30 can take off "fully loaded" in 7,000 feet, which is not the same as doing it at MTOW.

All I'm asking is for someone to say, "Yes, the KC-30 can take off at MTOW in 7,000 ft." Will you, Zeke, be the one that says that simple, straightforward, and unambiguous statement (and nothing more) so that we can lay this issue to rest once and for all?

I don't know why, after all this time, no one has come out and said that simple statement - if it's true. Everyone seems to hide behind the term "fully loaded".

[Edited 2008-06-18 06:42:33]
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:20 pm

No, everyone is just discussing a topic that should be done month ago as some cannot accept the choice DOD has made.

And again, underlining my post 12 and CHRISBA777ER post nr. 42 there is quite some issue in a lot of minds here, being convinced to know it better than those actually buying the tankers after year long definiton of what THEY (and not the common US tax payer) need.

Would be quite a thing to see in some future, the US in their effort to conquer the world over at Iran having an suboptimal 767 tanker and crying about the lack of ability because they bought what the unions and the common citizen wanted rather than what the specialists evaluated what is best.  Wink
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 45):
No, everyone is just discussing a topic that should be done month ago as some cannot accept the choice DOD has made.

There are numerous examples of where the DOD has either made mistakes and had to go out and re-bid or Congress has refused to fund because whatever DOD wanted to buy either did not work or wound up being much more expensive than planned. It is ludicrous to assume the DOD does not make mistakes.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 45):
And again, underlining my post 12 and CHRISBA777ER post nr. 42 there is quite some issue in a lot of minds here, being convinced to know it better than those actually buying the tankers after year long definiton of what THEY (and not the common US tax payer) need.

First off, not everyone here is what you call "the common taxpayer". Second it is a fact that the Air Force changed the RFP several times in order to keep EADS competing on the RFP. Third, the KC-767 meets or exceeds all RFP requirements. By law the air force can only take into account those requirements. It is then Congress job to determine if funding this tanker is in the overall national interest of the United States.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 45):
the US in their effort to conquer the world over at Iran having an suboptimal 767 tanker

So tell me, after a clearly insulting comment like that why I should want to spend my tax dollars on your country's product when I have a perfectly good alternative here?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:22 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 12):
Why would you or anyone (including me) know any better what USAF needs then USAF???

Because sometimes the taxpayers (via COngress) needs to put the brakes on spending by the USAF and all other branches in the military. There is not always a need to get the "best bank for the buck" - especially if that means more bucks. If the Boeing option is cheaper and meets the basic needs then it should be the option chosen.

In terms of "cheaper" I believe that the USAF should have included the potential tax revenues that would be generated from the contractors profits from the contract. If company X gets a contract and pays $40 million in income taxes from the contract then that $40 million should be deducted from the cost when considering the cost of the contract. Basically the government would be moving money from their left pocket to their right pocket.

I also think that some generals are in la-la land when looking at costs. There seems to be a huge lack of understanding of the US's current economic situation, financial demands of the Iraq War, long term financial demands for the VA to care for Vets, etc. While $34 million may seem trivial it would have gone a long way in paying for body armor a few years ago when families were buying for their son or daughter in Iraq. $34 million is also just about the amount for 5 years of improved care of children under a new program that Bush vetoed.

Personally, I believe that we're talking about a flying petrol station here. The cheapest option that is adequate should be the option chosen. Save the extra spending for critical first tier needs, like fighters - that is where the extra money is critical.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
"According to the RFP, the KC-X must be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level up to its maximum gross weight for takeoff."

I'm just a simple pax, but it seems to me that an airport/base with only a 7,000 Ft runway would have very little space for parking planes. I would assume that the USAF would have other types of planes based there, limiting space availability for tankers. Wouldn't Boeing's offering be more desirable when space is at a limit? I also wonder just how full a tanker operating from a small base will need during a single mission. It's a huge waste of fuel to send it out fully loaded just because you can.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 42):
so much for free trade and commerce eh?

Try to find out how many billions of dollars our trade debt is each year and you'll see that we are a pretty open country in terms of trade.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15083
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:36 pm



Quoting CX747 (Reply 3):
Can we please RESTART with a fresh draft of what the USAF wants and get down to it?

Reminds me of the Florida election in 2000. It was called for Boeing, then a surprise winner comes in Airbus, then a lot of fighting. Both sides kept changing the rules in the middle in 2000 to the point that it was not going to be resolved without a do-over. Luckily, in this case we can take our time and make the right choice and still get a great plane either way. In 2000, both choices pretty much sucked.  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:37 pm

The report from the GAO was scathing. They are basically stating the competition needs to start from scratch....
"Up the Irons!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A320B737NGCapt and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos