Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): March Air Reserve Base, Calif

Thats really good, March will have MQ- 9 Reapers, C-17s and KC-X!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): They had the same choice between the upgraded F-15 and the F-22, history shows which was they went there, and now you are suggesting they should buy more F-22s, the aircraft with more capability.

Really bad analogy Zeke. The F-22 is a game changer. It is a quantum leap in capabilities over the F-15. The Kc-30 is merely bigger and can carry some more fuel and cargo. It does not do o for less money and it does not change anything in any way.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): Yes the KC-767 might, but the 767 line will not employ more people than the A330 line in the US. The KC-30 also brings the A330F.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): The 767 line has a small backlog, plus whatever tankers, the A330 line would be for 400 odd freighters and the tankers (and possibly for A330 passenger aircraft when the A350 goes into production).

This is just laughable. The assembly line in Alabama, according to EADS will employ 1500 - 2000 people. Compare that to the entire supply chain of the 767 being kept intact for the next 10 years. It's not even close. Keep the 1500 metal slapping jobs in Europe. I would rather keep the 10s of thousands of engineering jobs here.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): No, NG is doing the US military conversion of the aircraft.

Big deal. NG is bolting in radios and doing PR. Thats like saying the IFE vendor is the prime contractor for the A380.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): 5 KC-30s provide the capability of about 9-10 KC-135R aircraft,

Thats not so good Zeke. It's all about having greater numbers of booms in the air. You get less booms with the KC-30.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): he bases that are earmarked for the KC-X are :

Don't you think you are being a bit premature? But even if you are not just think of the billions of dollars in additional MILCON costs that these various bases will have to spend on upgraded infrastructure for what would be the largest aircraft in the Air Force inventory.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): They did not use a different assessment standard or specification for NG and Boeing.

The most certainly did use a different standard. They told boeing that they had the right sized tanker.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): Same could be said about Boeing in Seattle, lots of talk has been made of them moving the future 737 assembly where it cheaper, and the majority of the 787 is made elsewhere.

Unlike Mobile where the planes are slapped together from major assemblies, Boeing has a large engineering presence in Washington. I would put my money on an established manufacturing and engineering plant staying put from an American company that has been in business for 80 years than a foreign company that is promising to build a finishing facility.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): Large wing span yes, highest weight, no. Depending on the surface, the KC-30 actually has a lower ACN than the KC-135

It is a fact that extensive upgrades of runways, taxiways and hangers will have to be performed. This will add billions to the true cost of the KC-30.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): Really bad analogy Zeke. The F-22 is a game changer. It is a quantum leap in capabilities over the F-15. The Kc-30 is merely bigger and can carry some more fuel and cargo. It does not do o for less money and it does not change anything in any way.

The KC-30 is a game changer over the KC-135, it does a lot of things out of the box that you need a number of 135 models to do. It is a valid analogy.

Just about everything that the F-22 can do can be done by the F-15 platform, just the F-22 does it better, it is more capable.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): This is just laughable. The assembly line in Alabama, according to EADS will employ 1500 - 2000 people. Compare that to the entire supply chain of the 767 being kept intact for the next 10 years. It's not even close. Keep the 1500 metal slapping jobs in Europe. I would rather keep the 10s of thousands of engineering jobs here.

That is just one part of it, 45% of all airbus aircraft come from the US, e.g Vought make a large percentage of the A330 wing, GE the engines etc, Honeywell electronics. The KC-30 would support about 14,000 jobs directly. EADS presently adds about $10 billion to the US economy annually, supports about 190,000 American jobs. They already are a large player in the US aerospace industry.

Have you been to the 767 line in Everett ? I would be very surprised if Boeing is directly using more people than 1,000 people in assembling the 767, it is not as busy as the other lines with its low production rate.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): Big deal. NG is bolting in radios and doing PR. Thats like saying the IFE vendor is the prime contractor for the A380.

More than that, as far as I know they they will do all the military conversion, including the tanker conversion.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): Thats not so good Zeke. It's all about having greater numbers of booms in the air. You get less booms with the KC-30.

The KC-30 gives you more booms in the air, the KC-135 gives you more booms on the ground. While the KC-135 transits to refuel on the ground, the KC-30 remains on station.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): Don't you think you are being a bit premature?

That was the USAF plan announced, you think I made the USAF slide up myself ?

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): The most certainly did use a different standard. They told boeing that they had the right sized tanker.

The USAF never told Boeing anything like that. All they told Boeing was they met the KPP.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): Unlike Mobile where the planes are slapped together from major assemblies, Boeing has a large engineering presence in Washington.

Airbus already has a built a major engineering center in Mobile, they work on the A330/340/350/380. Boeing has been sending a lot of its engineering work overseas, a lot of the 787 was designed in Japan and Europe, and the 748 designed in Russia.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): It is a fact that extensive upgrades of runways, taxiways and hangers will have to be performed.

Name one airport that needs "extensive upgrades of runways, taxiways and hangers" for the KC-30, and what is required for the KC-767 ? The KC-767 is also taller and about 20% wider than a KC-135.

This is a common argument used by many against the KC-30, but in the commercial aviation world, how many airports need "extensive upgrades of runways, taxiways and hangers" to be upgraded to handle an A330 ?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 90): The key for the WTO issue is that Airbus cannot pass on any charges, or increases in related costs, that they may get hit with if the WTO rules against them.

The AF added this clause in since both Airbus and Boeing could face fines as a result of action at WTO, so the clause aplies to both.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): You get less booms with the KC-30.

You get the number of booms in the air the AF wants to buy. 179 whether it's KC-30 or KC-767.

Quoting Alien (Reply 101): They told boeing that they had the right sized tanker.

This has been claimed forever. Even Boeing has backtracked on it now. Can you provide anything to back up this claim? This Leeham article says it all about tanker size and Boeing's interpretation of it.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

I have got to ask if airbus gives the shell of the aircraft and Northrop does everything else what is the problem? I am certain that there is a good percentage of American products in Airbus aircraft already. And by the way what about all the foreign parts in Boeing aircraft that are shipped to Seattle for assembly how come no one talks about that.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 70): Do you buy an SUV if a sedan will do the job?

Depends on the job. In this case the job would be to deliver fuel to gas stations with a fleet of 180 cars. If 180 SUV's would cost only a little more than 180 sedans what car would you take to do that job?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 70): There was never any doubt that the KC-30 could haul more stuff than the KC-767. The debate has always been rather that extra capability was really needed and how much it would cost to get it.

True, but for transporting goods how should "more stuff" not always be better if the additional cost in percent is far lower than the capacity gain?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98): Of course the AF generals wants bigger planes, regardless of the costs. As far as I'm concerned they have their head in the clouds when it comes to costs. Why settle for a plane that can do the job when you can buy a bigger plane for more money? One should not dare to ask them if the KC-10 can handle those rare and unique jobs the 330 can do, but the 767 can't.

Makes no sense if we consider that the capacity gain is bigger than the cost gain. To show the principle take this example: The KC-30 allows missions to fly with say 2 aircrafts that would require 3 KC767 or 5 KC 135 -> Huge savings over the time!

IMO the cargo capability alone will allow huge savings. Having a bunch of freighters with leading efficiency in the fleet will allow to cut costs a lot. I dare to say that the existing cargo fleet causes multitude of costs per transported ton compared to the KC-30 in the airlifter role. Even against outsourced cargo operations the KC-30 will shine on the cost side. Save many, many tax $!

It is my understanding that with tanker-operations the airplanes have long idle times. That suits well to the idea of a multi-role-aircraft. Highly improved usability.

The KC-30 will fly in the marginally higher expenses in no time.

Is this what they mean by the phrase, 'Your tax dollars hard at work?'

So let's say that Boeing 'wins' this time. What possible response could they have to the whining, wailing, and moaning coming from Northrop? Can they tell Northrop to 'Man up dude...you lost fair & square?'

I think not.

What is the point of even re-bidding? If the DoD is going to give the KC-30A all the "extra credit" that won it the RFP in the first place, then it is going to win the re-bid, as well, on the same grounds.

Boeing is not going to pitch the 777F unless the DoD tells them it would win because it would get even more "extra credit" then the KC-30A.

So at this point, Boeing should probably do what NG/EADS did during the original RFP and threaten to pull out of the RFP because it cannot possibly win based on the RFP criteria being tailored to the "other team's" product.



Personally, I don't think we need either of them. If the B-52 can fly 100 years, so can a 707. Just keep modernizing the KC-135 fleet, retiring the oldest planes on a sliding scale. And save those tens of billions to put into non-defense projects that actually could do some good in the world.

[Edited 2008-07-11 06:07:32]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107): Boeing is not going to pitch the 777F unless the DoD tells them it would win because it would get even more "extra credit" then the KC-30A.

It's much heavier and does not meet the 7000 ft runway requirement met by the 767 and A330, would be far more expensive, has to be developed from the start taking years etc.. I think it would score low. You can score "extra credit" within given requirements, not outside.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Depends on the job. In this case the job would be to deliver fuel to gas stations with a fleet of 180 cars. If 180 SUV's would cost only a little more than 180 sedans what car would you take to do that job?

You are assuming you are filling up the back of your SUV with gas cans. A more realistic scenario would be that you currently own a sedan to drive gas cans to the gas station and it works fine. Only once in a blue moon you actually fill it up but you rarely find you need more than what your sedan offers. When you do you borrow your neighbors SUV (KC-10) to do the job. Your sedan is getting a little long in the tooth and you decide you want to replace it. You walk into the dealership and tell the dealer you need a new sedan. He points you in the direction of this really big SUV and offers you a pretty good deal on it. Not as cheap as the sedan, but you figure hey for the extra capability it might be worthwhile to have it someday. You buy the SUV despite the fact the load your sedan currently hauls works 95% of the time but you figure for the 5% of the time you need to haul more you should buy the SUV. Now you are driving back and forth to the gas station with an only partially full load of gas cans (a load that would have fit fine in the sedan). However now you are regretting the decision because your the costs to fill up the gas tank of your SUV have skyrocketed. Why did I buy this beast when I only need it 5% of the time, it would have been better to just keep borrowing my neighbors SUV (KC-10) on the rare occasion I needed it. Or I should have had my wife drive her sedan to the gas station too.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): IMO the cargo capability alone will allow huge savings. Having a bunch of freighters with leading efficiency in the fleet will allow to cut costs a lot.

If we are using the tankers to haul cargo then they aren't doing their primary job of off-loading fuel. We are also adding a lot of cycles to the airframe and shortening the life of the aircraft. There is not a chance in hell the KC-30 will last 50 years if it is constantly flying like that. Modern planes like the KC-30 aren't built like tanks like the older 707s, DC-9s, etc. We've gained structural efficiency with every generation of aircraft, but these new aircraft don't have the extra structure that made these older planes like tanks.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): I dare to say that the existing cargo fleet causes multitude of costs per transported ton compared to the KC-30 in the airlifter role.

The KC-30 will relieve the C-17 and C-130 fleets occasionally when they aren't doing their primary mission, but how much of a difference is it really going to make? How many planes are actually going to be available to significantly relieve the cargo fleets? If there are a sizable number then we have too many tankers.

You also run into the problem of putting a ton of cycles and a ton of hours on the frame. This aircraft won't last as long as the KC-135 did if we operate it in this manner.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Even against outsourced cargo operations the KC-30 will shine on the cost side. Save many, many tax $!

Not a chance, the KC-30 will have tens of thousands of pounds of extra weight from the equipment needed to offload fuel. A more efficient plane would be the A330F since it wouldn't have all of that extra dead weight. The most cost effective option would be to pick up used widebody airframes from airlines as they retire and convert them to cargo aircraft for a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the cost of a new frame. Fed Ex, UPS, and DHL do it all the time and it works well for them.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): It is my understanding that with tanker-operations the airplanes have long idle times. That suits well to the idea of a multi-role-aircraft. Highly improved usability

There aren't going to be tons and tons of KC-30s just sitting around waiting to haul cargo. The USAF will still send the same number of tankers on a mission. They won't replace 5 KC-135s with 2 KC-30s. They will still send 5 KC-30s because they need to get strike packages refueled as quickly as possible. If you cut the number of booms down from 5 to 2 then by the time you refuel the last plane the first one has already run out of gas and crashed. You are now flying 5 larger aircraft when you are offloading the same amount of fuel (which is typically under 100,000 lbs) when the 5 smaller tankers would have done just fine.

Remember, USAF fighters only use booms and the limiting factor for them is the rate they can recieve fuel, not the rate it can be offloaded to them.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): They had the same choice between the upgraded F-15 and the F-22, history shows which was they went there, and now you are suggesting they should buy more F-22s, the aircraft with more capability.

I know you love Airbus but comparing the A330 as the F22 and the 767 as the F-15? Really? That argument might work if it was the A350 vs the 767. All the KC-30 offers over the KC-767 is the ability to haul more stuff, a capability we won't use most of the time.

If the KC-30 becomes a stealth tanker or picks up the ability to supercruise then you can use that analogy.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): hat is very true, but that plant is already involved with the A330/A340/A350/A380.

Really, what parts from those aircraft are being built in Mobile?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): Yes the KC-767 might, but the 767 line will not employ more people than the A330 line in the US. The KC-30 also brings the A330F.

I'm not making this about jobs, but why should the civilian jobs created by the A330F count? This is a military contract. As a tax payer in a state that isn't really affected by this deal (I don't know anyone getting or losing a job because of this contract) I want the Air Force to base its fleet around the plane they will use for 95% of the missions and not the one they need 5% of the time. They should buy a few tankers for those missions and not base the whole fleet around it. I'm not opposed to buying the KC-30 I just think for the mission of replacing the KC-135 it is way too big.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): No, NG is doing the US military conversion of the aircraft.

Really, that is it? That is more of a raw deal then I thought. I thought all the major parts (wings, fuselage, tail, etc.) were coming to NG and then being assembled into the plane. I thought that was the plan all along? If all they are doing now is just adding the boom and the other equipment then that is a raw deal and hardly a final assembly line, the Chinese got a better deal then NG and the state of Alabama did. I thought they were doing both?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): Same could be said about Boeing in Seattle, lots of talk has been made of them moving the future 737 assembly where it cheaper, and the majority of the 787 is made elsewhere.

Given Boeing's problems with the 787 assembly I doubt they will outsource the 737RS overseas as much. There are still plenty of other states in the union like Alabama that will do the work for cheaper than Seattle. Maybe that'll teach the unions to stop being so greedy. Kind of hard to argue against jobs getting outsourced across state lines.

I also wouldn't count on Airbus having a long term presence here, as soon as the dollar recovers the states won't be as good of a place to work. That plus the pressure from European Unions and governments will keep the work limited here. I don't expect much more than a few design centers and maybe a freighter conversion line, but Mobile will never be the aerospace center that Seattle is unless NG starts building their own commercial jets.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 108): It's much heavier and does not meet the 7000 ft runway requirement met by the 767 and A330, would be far more expensive, has to be developed from the start taking years etc.. I think it would score low. You can score "extra credit" within given requirements, not outside.

Unless the DoD modifies the RFP - again - to turn the 777's demerits into pluses, as was done with the KC-30A to allow NG/EADS to pitch it with a reasonable chance of success. Mind you, I don't expect the 777F to be pitched, period.



If Congress is hell-bent on Boeing winning the deal, for whatever reason(s), then they should just pass a motion to make their "will" known and we can end the charade. Either that or they should force the DoD to punt until next year and allow Boeing time to investigate options like an IGW 767-400ERF that would be a better overall match to the KC-30A and then it will not be necessary to tweak the RFP to favor the KC-767ADV or the KC-30A and instead the two can go head-to-head. The KC-30A will still offer superior performance, but the KC-764 should offer better economics so it won't be as clear-cut as it is now between the KC-767 and KC-30A.

[Edited 2008-07-11 06:49:18]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107): What is the point of even re-bidding? If the DoD is going to give the KC-30A all the "extra credit" that won it the RFP in the first place, then it is going to win the re-bid, as well, on the same grounds. Boeing is not going to pitch the 777F unless the DoD tells them it would win because it would get even more "extra credit" then the KC-30A. So at this point, Boeing should probably do what NG/EADS did and threaten to pull out of the RFP because it cannot possibly win based on the RFP criteria being tailored to the "other team's" product.

I agree.

I think the USAF/DoD can rewrite the RFP to get whatever plane they want, and I think they now want the A330. All that matters in terms of the RFP process is the criterial they write down get applied equally and fairly.

And if this is what is done, it's game over for Boeing.

There's still a few more rounds to play out, but at some point Boeing will have to decide how to deal with the loss. They can choose to take their toys and go home, or they could keep the pressure on, lose the RFP, and then try to get Congress to vote down the tanker funding so they'll get another bite at the apple in the future. But something tells me Congress won't block funding. Heck, if they can vote for FISA with a clear conscience, they'll vote for anything.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): 5 KC-30s provide the capability of about 9-10 KC-135R aircraft,

If you're implying that the KC-30s won't replace the 135s on a one-to-one basis, then that is actually a reduction in aerial refueling capability since fewer tankers would be airborne, meaning fewer flights of receivers can be refueled simultaneously, or the receivers have to fly longer distances to the tankers, or the receivers have to wait longer to take on fuel.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): The other aspect of the post which you are obviously inferring is the KC-767 would fit 8 aircraft, that is also false

I wasn't inferring anything. I was just pointing out that "operating" from a base does not mean what you were inferring, which is that tanker operations with the KC-30 can continue at existing bases worldwide without any loss of capabilities or change in operational readiness.

There was no need to put up all of that irrelevant data, but I can see why you did as you like to appear as an expert in these matters.  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99): they should have kept Boeing informed and the discussion open

And the reasons for why they did not, which reflects unequal treatment, is considered prejudicial. At least under our system of laws. But maybe where you're from the standard of fairness and equal treatment under the law is different, which could be why you seem to think this is a "minor" procedural issue.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 55): The A330 cost more burns more fuel and puts 8,000 people out of a job.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 67): If it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, then it is a better value.

So what are the figures for a typical mission for the two planes using for example Zeke's statistic?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 69): Aerial Refueling Efficiency = (fuel offloaded) / (fuel burned + fuel offloaded)

I await with interest to know the numbers. Those large wings might surprise?

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Depends on the job. In this case the job would be to deliver fuel to gas stations with a fleet of 180 cars.

Nice reductio ad absurdum but probably fair! 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 111): Heck, if they can vote for FISA with a clear conscience, they'll vote for anything.

Well you might think that, I could not possibly comment.   

Here are a few "spins" on the issue worth reading. This first one mentions the time-line could change to evaluate the possible offering of a 777.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40438&dcn=todaysnews


Press Release from Rep. Dicks about his concerns for the USAF pushing for the larger A330.

http://www.house.gov/dicks/news/newtankerrx.html


This is slightly off message but NG has said the E-8C (Boeing 707) can fly beyond 2070. It appears the E-8C will last at least 100 years. Is the quality of the material and workmanship better on the 707 than on the KC-135? BTW....the B-52 is still ok to keep flying and its also Eisenhower vintage.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=146017

Initial feedback through engineering channels:

1- The Airforce stands to pay a high penalty charge due to Engineering work and purchases made by the EADS team whom had the contract in hand if Boeing is awarded the contract. Thus the DOD is taking the point to protect the current investment. Development dollars are hard to come by.
2- Without a re-bid with a new RFP the DOD could not legally justify the award to the KC-45 with the current RFP reguardless of what was or was not informed to each team. ie) extra credit, etc.
3- With the re-bid and an updated FRP it gives the DOD a get out of jail free card.
4- With the 3 groups of aircraft, small, medium, large. The DOD with input from its Generals has made a move to combine the KC- large and KC- medium requirement into a single aircraft. Which the KC-45 is best suited. The plan was to buy KC-medium then KC-Large then KC-small. With the ability to get 2 for one in the KC-45 it provides the Airforce with one less platform to train on and service. The new RFP will show this. It may open the window for a larger Boeing plane.
5- The KC-767 is the best taker in the medium catagory. The KC-45 is the best when you combine the medium and large together. Boeing does not have a medium/large plane ready to offer (787) that falls in the upper medium catagory. They do have a lower large plane but depending upon the adjusted RFP it may not be allowed.

In short the news is that the EADS team has a winning combination. Boeing should advance the timeline for the 737 replacement to block a total win by the EADS team.

[Edited 2008-07-11 09:33:00]

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 82): I just wrote a letter to Senator Murray of Washington State:

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. Sending an insulting letter to a Senator from another state will result in it being promptly tossed into the circular file cabinet by a junior staffer/intern. However, you may get lucky and get a nice form letter back in a month or two.

Hope the exercise made you feel better.

[edit - fixed typo]

[Edited 2008-07-11 09:26:35]

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 105): Makes no sense if we consider that the capacity gain is bigger than the cost gain. To show the principle take this example: The KC-30 allows missions to fly with say 2 aircrafts that would require 3 KC767 or 5 KC 135 -> Huge savings over the time!

That provides a good argument to cut order quantities 40-50% and re-engine the KC-135s to last until KC-Y and KC-Z are on the table and can be delivered.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 109): There are still plenty of other states in the union like Alabama that will do the work for cheaper than Seattle. Maybe that'll teach the unions to stop being so greedy.

In a lot of places the local cost of living impacts the salaries that are needed to attract talent at any level. Look at cities like New York and San Francisco and try to figure out how much more you have to pay to get good people over, say, Tulsa.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 111): I think the USAF/DoD can rewrite the RFP to get whatever plane they want, and I think they now want the A330.

I think you're right. If they do I can see Boeing walking away, just like Airbus did on the original RFP. Let the AF deal with the political fall out, as well as McCain who would be squirming more than he did on the Viagra question. Big George and Little Dick would also be squirming, but Little Dick generally isn't bothered by the Administration FUBARs.

It also might bring the number of planes authorized by congress down to a level that will carry over the AF until the next phase (KC-Y&Z) can be worked out - which might be the best idea of all.

There was some comment at yesterdays hearing which mentioned a small KC-X aircraft (apparently alluding to the 767 as small when compared to the A330). There are only two categories allowed for in the AOA linked below. Medium and Large. The small category aircraft were dismissed as not cost effective as was the very large category A380. (see AOA page12). This was the AOA that was also referenced by Sec. Young at yesterdays hearing when talking about aircraft sizes.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/359752_tanker19.html

After going back and reading the article above, I have some problems with this being a fair and impartial redo, and even that the DOD doesn't care who wins. Hope congress is watching really closely!

Young said that Boeing has no basis for protesting.

"Everything I have seen is, this was a very well-run source selection, by the books and in accordance with the law," he said.

Sure thing Mr Young!!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 111): There's still a few more rounds to play out, but at some point Boeing will have to decide how to deal with the loss.

They should cut a deal with the DoD to give up the KC-45A RFP in exchange for having their CSAR-X RFP win upheld and a guarantee they and LM will win the new medium-bomber competition against NG.


[Edited 2008-07-11 12:16:08]

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 118): The small category aircraft were dismissed as not cost effective as was the very large category A380

This is what I was eluding to. When the original RFP was issued there was the Idea of 3 and a focus on 2 types. When the top brass got involved they moved behind the lines to combine the top 2. There is still the need to refuel the V-22 and other rotor craft, black ops missions etc. which a small tanker would provide better coverage using a smaller radar signature, etc.

The point is the USAF needs changed. Boeing was focused upon the 1 round proposal which they won first. The USAF changed their minds in the process of the 2 round. EADS listened and Boeing held tight to the paper RFP which already they had won previously. The score is now 1 to 1. This seems to be the best 2 out of 3. The sad story is that Boeing's cheese has moved and it is unknown what they will do now.

The updated RFP will tell all. I feel a storm coming. Hopefully it will not become the best 4 out of 7.

Does anybody really believe the US is going to give a contract like this to an outside party? If anybody believes another company aside from Boeing will ultimately win this contract then you are wonderfully gullible.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 121): The point is the USAF needs changed. Boeing was focused upon the 1 round proposal which they won first. The USAF changed their minds in the process of the 2 round. EADS listened and Boeing held tight to the paper RFP which already they had won previously. The score is now 1 to 1. This seems to be the best 2 out of 3. The sad story is that Boeing's cheese has moved and it is unknown what they will do now.

This is incorrect. The second RFP also did not credit for "extra capability" This is one of the things quoted when the GAO said that if the contest had been run per the RFP, Boeing might have won. So the cheese did not move for RFP 2, though Young has hinted he might move it this time.

Quoting ANZUS340 (Reply 122): Does anybody really believe the US is going to give a contract like this to an outside party? If anybody believes another company aside from Boeing will ultimately win this contract then you are wonderfully gullible.

Then I don't want to be an American taxpayer. 30 years ago the situation was different, with Douglas and Lockheed there existed inner-American competion in the market for big aircraft. Now only Boeing is left. Once they know they'll get any contract, no matter how bad or expensive the product, they virtually have a licence to print money and will fleece the US defense budget.
Why do you think did airlines like SQ stick with the A380, even though all the problems with delays? There exist only two companies worldwide (if you don't count in the Russians and Ukrainians) which can build large aircraft. If Airbus would have gone bust, the airlines would have been stuck with Boeing as a monopolist. The same applies the other way around.
For the same reason us Europeans still manufacture fighter and military transport aircraft.

Jan

Quoting NorCal (Reply 109): Really, that is it? That is more of a raw deal then I thought. I thought all the major parts (wings, fuselage, tail, etc.) were coming to NG and then being assembled into the plane. I thought that was the plan all along? If all they are doing now is just adding the boom and the other equipment then that is a raw deal and hardly a final assembly line, the Chinese got a better deal then NG and the state of Alabama did. I thought they were doing both?

The planes (A330F) will be fully assembled by Airbus in Mobile. They will then roll about a football field's length to the adjacent NG facility, where they will be militarized and converted to tankers.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 121): The point is the USAF needs changed. Boeing was focused upon the 1 round proposal which they won first. The USAF changed their minds in the process of the 2 round. EADS listened and Boeing held tight to the paper RFP which already they had won previously. The score is now 1 to 1. This seems to be the best 2 out of 3. The sad story is that Boeing's cheese has moved and it is unknown what they will do now.

Good explanation. But I would disagree that Boeing won round 1 - they stole it (if you are referring to the tanker scandal as round 1). They also tried with round 2 - but the Pentagon wouldn't play this time. Now we have Boeing's supporters trying real hard to pressure the Pentagon to leave the RFP alone so the 767 will win but I doubt the Pentagon will as evidenced by Mr. Young's comments.

The key is to watch what Boeing's supporters in Congress now do. If the Pentagon will not leave the fuel offload KPP as is (per the GAO's interpretation) then Boeing's supporters will pressure the Pentagon to extend the RFP timeline to allow another platform to be bid.

Quoting M27 (Reply 119): After going back and reading the article above, I have some problems with this being a fair and impartial redo, and even that the DOD doesn't care who wins. Hope congress is watching really closely! Young said that Boeing has no basis for protesting. "Everything I have seen is, this was a very well-run source selection, by the books and in accordance with the law," he said. Sure thing Mr Young!!

Your smoking dope if you think this is less to do about specifics than it is politics - I can't imagine the JSF or F-22 getting the nod right now in this climate, we still can't even resolve CSAR-X.

Boeing doesn't deserve either one of the bids until they can offer the USAF cutting edge and modern technology and not what's lying around in their parts closet - one would have to agree that the USAF evidently did not want Boeing too terribly bad when they awarded KC-X to NG.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 127): Your smoking dope if you think this is less to do about specifics than it is politics

You would know of course!

Thanks for the warm kind greating by the way!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 127): I can't imagine the JSF or F-22 getting the nod right now in this climate, we still can't even resolve CSAR-X.

No doubt Boeing's falt!!!

According to you, the USAF screwed up on one RFP and got one right. We just disagree about which one.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 127): Boeing doesn't deserve either one of the bids until they can offer the USAF cutting edge and modern technology and not what's lying around in their parts closet

If better meets the RFP than the "so called" modern stuff from Lockheed, then its fine.

And yes, I think this KC-X award was more political than anything else.

Quoting M27 (Reply 119): Young said that Boeing has no basis for protesting.

If he believes that then is didn't read the GAO report. All we need running this additional review is someone who is still living in the pre-Boeing protest era. If the more expensive option wins then I hope congress cuts other AF procurement programs by the extra (and unnecessary) costs of the KC-45.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 126): But I would disagree that Boeing won round 1

As I recall, round 1 was initiated after 9/11 to keep Boeing producing planes and minimize the number of layoffs. It was going to be a least as there wasn't enough in the budget for direct purchases. One gal in the AF Procurement office stuffed things up (and went to prison) so the whole program was cancelled, and the layoffs increased.

Of course McCain claims a $6 Billion savings - not mentioning that lease purchases are more expensive than direct buys. He also leaves out the tax revenues from Boeing & their suppliers as well as the lost income taxes from those laid off. Throw in the costs of unemployment benefits, Medicaid and food stamp costs that the government paid out and and drop in revenues noted above and the $6 Billion falls more than a little.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 129): If he believes that then is didn't read the GAO report. All we need running this additional review is someone who is still living in the pre-Boeing protest era

Yes, I couldn't agree more! Just to make clear, the article I linked in reply 119 was from April of this year before the GAO report came out. The reason I linked it, is to indicate that, in my opinion, Mr. Young may not be the most impartial in making a selection. The

Quoting M27 (Reply 119): Sure thing Mr Young!!

was sarcasm on my part. I didn't make the post as clear as I should have.

[Edited 2008-07-11 19:19:13]

[Edited 2008-07-11 19:21:50]

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 125): The planes (A330F) will be fully assembled by Airbus in Mobile. They will then roll about a football field's length to the adjacent NG facility, where they will be militarized and converted to tankers.

Then sometime in the near future, the aircraft in pieces and production facilities will be utterly destroyed when the next major hurricane slams into Mobile Bay!

Why on God's green earth did NG/EADS select such a vulnerable location to build aircraft?

Before you defend how safe the Mobile location is, many remember what happened only a mile away at Battleship Park to the USS Alabama and the aircraft display hangar, and even greater destruction of Biloxi/Kessler AFB MS just 50 miles to the west.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 131): Why on God's green earth did NG/EADS select such a vulnerable location to build aircraft?

I believe Mobile was one of the sites Boeing was looking to assemble the 787 at. Boeing also has a large IDS presence at Huntsville.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 131): Then sometime in the near future, the aircraft in pieces and production facilities will be utterly destroyed when the next major hurricane slams into Mobile Bay! Why on God's green earth did NG/EADS select such a vulnerable location to build aircraft? Before you defend how safe the Mobile location is, many remember what happened only a mile away at Battleship Park to the USS Alabama and the aircraft display hangar, and even greater destruction of Biloxi/Kessler AFB MS just 50 miles to the west.

You raise a very valid point. I must ask you, however, as to why Boeing would choose such where you have aa risky location to build their aircraft. (see below about MOB, but I was referring to ICT, n abnormal risk of tornadoes.) Every place on God's green earth has a higher risk than somewhere else for a natural catastrophe. About the Battleship - that was the first time its base had been moved since it was placed there. Katrina was an exception to the rule. But I concur: if a tropical storm hits within 50 miles of MOB, you can go swimming in downtown. That hasn't stopped MAE (Singapore Technologies - Mobile Aerospace Engineering) from doing conversions and heavy maintenance for most major US carriers as well as many international ones.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132): I believe Mobile was one of the sites Boeing was looking to assemble the 787 at.

Mobile indeed was the site that Boeing chose. The new administration changed the decision, but city and state lawmakers had been notified by Boeing that BFM would be the assembly location for the 787. Kind of funny they called us stupid and incapable of building aircraft.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 133): Kind of funny they called us stupid and incapable of building aircraft.

I'd like to see where they said that. Can you post a reference?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 70): Alternatively there is another theory available to why NG got the bid. Boeing and a lot of other experts thought Boeing had the bid in the bag, but NG lobbied enough to get the extra credit clause added. They said they were going to walk away from the competition if the bid wasn't adjusted to give them a chance of winning. NG has just as powerful of a lobby as Boeing does.

  Absolutely! And employ's just about as many American's: Boeing just over 160,000 (commercial ops included) and Northrop just over 120,000.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 70): NG is just going to be a contractor assembling planes. This will not give them the know how or financial resources to build a commercial jet. As soon as the contract is filled and the A330 goes out of production, the assembly line and the aerospace center disappears. NG will just go back to what they are really good at, building aircraft carriers.

NG is one of the top satellite producers and also provide material to almost every flight platform out there. I guarantee that NG will not let go of the capability and will likely work to leverage even more airframes for military contracts. This is what Boeing really fears.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 71): Being able to "operate" from an airfield is a little different than being able to operate out of it efficiently or maintaining the same operational tempo. For example, the 161st ARW is located here in PHX. The ANG ramp on the south side of PHX can currently accommodate, I believe, 8 tankers. Of course, the KC-30 can operate from PHX, but without structural enhancements those 8 tanker pads will be able to accommodate not more than 5 KC-30s.

So won't 5 KC-30's be able to do the job of 8 KC-135's?

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 72): Quoting NorCal (Reply 70): If you are using it to that end most of the time. I would argue that if there is EVER a need for it, then it should be in the AF inventory.

The buy should be based on what is needed in wartime and to maximize wartime capabilities as that is when the resources are needed. Everything else is just practice and doesn't need that much, I mean why do we need a military in peacetime? We don't, we have it in case we really need it.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 74): 767s won't be built forever either but once that project concludes those workers can move to the 737RS ot Y3 down the road. What aircraft project after the A330 is Airbus planning on assembling in Mobile?

Maybe a A350F?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 75): You are assuming the dollar will stay weak forever. As soon as the dollar regains its strength Airbus will cut ties and run.

The USA is a good sized market and can hold its own, even as things change production can be adjusted to maintain a good return. Its actually a pretty smart thing to do.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 79): Just like the autos, refineries, and other manufacturing positions? They've all come to the south for this cheap labor, and the mast majority are still enjoying it.

Actually the auto jobs pay at levels similar to "union" levels. The key difference is that the pay is based on merit and performance (starting wages are lower but with the new UAW contacts the pay is sometimes even better). The auto makers have to pay well or else the UAW will move in quickly, and they have been trying for years now.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 131): Then sometime in the near future, the aircraft in pieces and production facilities will be utterly destroyed when the next major hurricane slams into Mobile Bay! Why on God's green earth did NG/EADS select such a vulnerable location to build aircraft? Before you defend how safe the Mobile location is, many remember what happened only a mile away at Battleship Park to the USS Alabama and the aircraft display hangar, and even greater destruction of Biloxi/Kessler AFB MS just 50 miles to the west.

Hurricanes are rare and seldom hit the same spot twice. Also the military and defense industry sites in the area recovered very quickly. I mean what happens when the Cascades fault line let go and wipes out all of coastal Washington?

.

the big thing that Boeing does not want is to have new competition for cargo/commercial grade aircraft and that's what the partnership that Northrop Grumman is developing will create. Throw on top of that Airbus gaining a foothold in the USofA and you see why there is all this pressure being brought to bear.

In the end the the competition between NG and B will produce both the best product and the best value for the American people. It always has.

Tugg

Quoting Tugger (Reply 135): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 71): Being able to "operate" from an airfield is a little different than being able to operate out of it efficiently or maintaining the same operational tempo. For example, the 161st ARW is located here in PHX. The ANG ramp on the south side of PHX can currently accommodate, I believe, 8 tankers. Of course, the KC-30 can operate from PHX, but without structural enhancements those 8 tanker pads will be able to accommodate not more than 5 KC-30s. So won't 5 KC-30's be able to do the job of 8 KC-135's?

From a purely fuel off-load standpoint, absolutely. And possibly more. But think of it in terms of refueling POINTS, not total fuel off-load capability. With fewer tankers (refueling points), receiver aircraft will have to either 1) fly longer distances to get to the refueling points; or 2) wait longer to refuel; or 3) all of the above. A simple analogy would be to think of a "super tanker" - one (imaginary) tanker that can carry enough fuel for an entire wing of aircraft (and still take off in under 10,000 feet of runway). Where are you going to position that super tanker during an attack mission? How far will receiver aircraft have to fly to that position? How long will receiver aircraft have to hold while other aircraft in the wing take on fuel? The key to efficient aerial refueling is saturation - getting as many booms in the air as possible, that way they can be disbursed in order to minimize travel distances and waiting times.

However, and in defense of NG/EADS, that appears to no longer be their key selling point. Originally they were selling a "fewer tankers required" strategy, but they seem to have dropped that. Perhaps as a result of the fact that their price point is in line with Boeing's "more tankers in the air" strategy and they can now offer a one-to-one boom replacement for the same price. In any event, my original point in bringing up this whole issue was that the considerably larger size of the KC-30 would require substantial modifications to airfield use-strategies, as well as modifications to the airfields themselves that the tankers fly out of.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132): I believe Mobile was one of the sites Boeing was looking to assemble the 787 at. Boeing also has a large IDS presence at Huntsville.

I don't know about the 787, but I do know Huntsville is 300 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico, approx 15 miles south of the Tennessee State line, pretty safe from Hurricanes... whereas Brookley Fld, the NG/EADS final assembly location for the new tanker is literally on Mobile Bay.

As with all Gulf Coast cities...all business is at great risk of damage/distruction here in "Hurricane Ally", EADS is not immune.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 133): Katrina was an exception to the rule. But I concur: if a tropical storm hits within 50 miles of MOB, you can go swimming in downtown. That hasn't stopped MAE (Singapore Technologies - Mobile Aerospace Engineering) from doing conversions and heavy maintenance for most major US carriers as well as many international ones.

Interesting point about Katrina...not only did "move" the USS Alabama and do major damage to the nearby hangar and aircraft inside...this of damage to the Mobile area was done with Katrina's landfall coming ashore 100 miles to the west of Mobile.

In other words...the damage to the Mobile area came from a glancing blow of a relatively minor (Cat 3) hurricane 100 miles west of Brookley Fld.

What's going to happen to the EADS facilities not if, but WHEN Mobile takes a direct hit from a powerful storm?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 135): Hurricanes are rare and seldom hit the same spot twice. Also the military and defense industry sites in the area recovered very quickly. I mean what happens when the Cascades fault line let go and wipes out all of coastal Washington?

Your kidding right? LOL

Hurricanes are neither rare nor do they seldom "hit the same spot twice"...

The Cascades have yet to slide into the Pacific Ocean, meanwhile...dozens of these rare hurricanes have visited the Mobile/Pensacola area...and like annoying relatives, they will continue to visit this, and other parts of the Gulf Coast.

Brief history of hurricanes hitting "the same spot" in or near Mobile area:

PNS
Oct 95 - Opal
Sept 04 - Ivan
Jul 05 - Dennis

MOB
Aug 69 - Camille
Sep 79 - Fredrick
Jul 97 - Danny
Sept 98 - Georges

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 137): What's going to happen to the EADS facilities not if, but WHEN Mobile takes a direct hit from a powerful storm?

A bit of a wild guess, but I think they might rebuild them. Perhaps a bit faster than the restoration in NO??

Toyota's announcement this week that they are building a new Prius plant in Mississippi is it.

It's close enough to Alabama, roughly same number of jobs to geographic region.

Contract to Boeing.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 138): A bit of a wild guess, but I think they might rebuild them. Perhaps a bit faster than the restoration in NO??

Repaired...yes...quuickly??? hardly...

It's not just the physical plant of one business that gets smacked around but the loss of major portions of infrastructure necessary to support an area. For example...it took more than 3 years to fully repair and reopen the damaged I-10 Interstate bridge across Pensacola Bay after hurricane Ivan dropped several sections of the bridge into the bay 2004 and more than 2 years to repair the bridge leading into New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain.

Lost bridges, railways, power distribution, communication systems etc take time to repair. Doesn't mean much to repair the EADS hangar if the railways, ports, bridges and power of the coastal town of Mobile is still in shambles.

As we were recently reminded just down the road on the gulf coast, these things take time...time the USAF would have to wait for such repairs to be effected, time spent waiting for tankers that are already late to need.

Newly renamed Boeing Military Aircraft is saying they will stand by their 767.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...c-767-for-us-tanker-recompete.html

Quote:
"Boeing will arrive at the Farnborough air show with a partially new identity and a renewed confidence that its KC-767 design can win the US Air Force’s controversial KC-X tanker competition.

The company – which last week learned that its appeal into the USAF’s selection of the Airbus A330-based Northrop Grumman/EADS North America KC-30 had resulted in the deal’s abandonment – is currently “digesting comments and feedback” from a closed hearing on 10 July, says Chris Chadwick, president of the newly rebranded Boeing Military Aircraft."

.....At the same time providing themselves with an out.....

"'If the RFP is modified substantially we’ll have to bring it in, look at it and decide how to go forward,' says Chadwick, who adds: 'we do have options'. Boeing has conducted previous design studies on a KC-777 tanker, which would be larger than the KC-30."

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 137): In other words...the damage to the Mobile area came from a glancing blow of a relatively minor (Cat 3) hurricane 100 miles west of Brookley Fld.

Katrina had the storm surge and geographic span of a Category 6 hurricane.

Quoting M27 (Reply 128): No doubt Boeing's falt!!! According to you, the USAF screwed up on one RFP and got one right. We just disagree about which one.

No way Boeing gets both KC-X and CSAR-X now - the USAF has more pride (and common sense) than that.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 142): Katrina had the storm surge and geographic span of a Category 6 hurricane.

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale only goes as high as Category 5.

Quoting Redflyer (Reply 144): The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale only goes as high as Category 5.

My point exactly. As I said earlier, Katrina was the exception, not the rule. Also, I am aware that the SS scale disregards storm surge and storm size. Someone just said that MOB was so jolted b/c of a Cat 3 hurricane hit 120 miles west, and they implied that that would happen with any hurricane. The Battleship and hangar had never been damaged so... ever.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 140): Lost bridges, railways, power distribution, communication systems etc take time to repair. Doesn't mean much to repair the EADS hangar if the railways, ports, bridges and power of the coastal town of Mobile is still in shambles.

All true, but is it possible that EADS checked out how prepared Mobile is for repairing hurricane damage or would they just barrel in assuming all would be the best in the best of all possible worlds?

I have to say, news of hurricanes in the GoM has been very limited so perhaps they were not aware of any problem.   

Quoting Baroque (Reply 146): I have to say, news of hurricanes in the GoM has been very limited so perhaps they were not aware of any problem. angel

They were aware of the potential, and specifically Katrina, as were most French. French media actually made it appear as if MOB and MSY were equally damaged. They grossly exaggerated the story. Even as life returned to normal that fall and winter, we still did not have the confidence indicators of exchange students, etc.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 145): My point exactly. As I said earlier, Katrina was the exception, not the rule. Also, I am aware that the SS scale disregards storm surge and storm size. Someone just said that MOB was so jolted b/c of a Cat 3 hurricane hit 120 miles west, and they implied that that would happen with any hurricane. The Battleship and hangar had never been damaged so... ever.

Katrina was the exception? No, it was not...Katrina was just the latest in a long line of storms who have done significant damage to Mobile and this one didn't even make landfall near Mobile.

I mean to imply nothing...I mean to state as fact that MOB has sustained significant damage from a storm that landed 100 miles away, we can expect even greater damage to the town and future EADS facilities should the town take a direct hit from a major hurricane in the future.

To claim that since the battleship and hangar had "never" seen such damage in the past means this are will never see such damage in the future is as foolish as it is wrong.

You can pretend that Mobile has NEVER sustained significant damage from hurricanes in the past but the fact is I have named but a few of the storms and the years they struck the AL gulf coast and all can "google" these storms and see the very real, very deadly, and very costly these storms have been to the Mobile area time and again.

Aug 69 - Camille
Sep 79 - Fredrick
Jul 97 - Danny
Sept 98 - Georges

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 148): Katrina was the exception? No, it was not...Katrina was just the latest in a long line of storms who have done significant damage to Mobile and this one didn't even make landfall near Mobile.

Katrina was most definitely the exception. No storm, of any SS ranking, had ever had the geographic footprint or storm surge as Katrina. (The rising water is what caused the list at the battleships's anchoring.) The closest was Camile. Its only landfall was near Katrina's second landfall, and did not damage the battleship, despite it being a more powerful storm. Not building something in MOB becuase of the risk of hurricanes is like not building something along the Mississippi because of the Great Iowa Flood of 2008.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 148): I mean to imply nothing...I mean to state as fact that MOB has sustained significant damage from a storm that landed 100 miles away, we can expect even greater damage to the town and future EADS facilities should the town take a direct hit from a major hurricane in the future.

You are correct. Any facilities will likely be damaged in the event a major hurricane directly hit them. As would Boeing's facilities in ICT, if they were directly hit by a tornado.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 148): To claim that since the battleship and hangar had "never" seen such damage in the past means this are will never see such damage in the future is as foolish as it is wrong.

I didn't say it would never happen again, but it received such damage once over 44 years of being there. The frequency is not there to prevent business from coming to the city.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 148): You can pretend that Mobile has NEVER sustained significant damage from hurricanes in the past but the fact is I have named but a few of the storms and the years they struck the AL gulf coast and all can "google" these storms and see the very real, very deadly, and very costly these storms have been to the Mobile area time and again. Aug 69 - Camille Sep 79 - Fredrick Jul 97 - Danny Sept 98 - Georges

I haven't pretended anything. I said you can go swimming in downtown in ANY tropical storm. I had personal property damage in Georges and Katrina, and lost a family member in Katrina. I know how deadly and costly they were to this area.

However, you would be very hard pressed to find a facility with the logistical advantages (major seaport, capable airfield, rail on site, at the convergence of two major interstates) of Mobile/Brookley Field that does not have a risk to hurricanes.