Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:23 pm

Per the Seattle PI:
Next tanker contest starts Wednesday

Quote:
The Pentagon announced Tuesday that it will issue a new draft request for proposals on Wednesday to Boeing and Northrop Grumman to provide 179 tankers for the Air Force.

The Pentagon scheduled a press conference for noon PDT Wednesday to explain the proposal.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/145313.asp
and another link (but not more info):
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D92CBVU82.htm

Let the games begin!

Tugg

[Edited 2008-08-05 16:45:26]
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
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:15 am

I think the KC30 is much to capable for the USAF.

rgds
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:39 am

To all:

I expect a split order to eliminate another protest to GAO, minimize political interference and maximize the benefits offered by the contenders.

The USAF should have done this in the first place.

regards,

F4N
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:47 am

Interesting additional news that relates to the tanker (just a press release really):

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...-4961-ADCE-AA3A61654BBD}&dist=hppr

Quote:
Advanced Aerial Refueling Boom for Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Concludes Testing Phase
Advanced aerial refueling system demonstrates its capabilities and maturity, achieving all test objectives

KC-45 Tanker has completed its testing and validation phase. Over the final two-day flight test period, the ARBS conducted more than 20 contacts with an F-16 fighter aircraft and, thereby, successfully achieved all remaining test objectives.
Completion of the boom test program confirmed the capabilities and maturity of the ARBS, which is a key element of the KC-45 Tanker. The ARBS also is incorporated on the similar KC-30B Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) for Australia -- the first of which will be delivered next year to the Royal Australian Air Force.
......

The ARBS test program spanned several years and included developmental testing, which began in the EADS System Integration Laboratory before moving to the ARBS Ground Test Rig. Activities then shifted to the flight phase in March 2006 with flights conducted on board the EADS A310 Boom Demonstrator aircraft.
......

Over the 40-month flight test phase, the ARBS successfully refueled numerous aircraft to include F-16 fighter aircraft, NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, and proximity testing with the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B MRTT. In total the ARBS accomplished 80 contacts and logged more than 146 flight hours during 122 sorties. Numerous wet and dry contacts were made at various altitudes and airspeeds, confirming both the ease of operation and the high nominal fuel flow rate. The large ARBS in-flight refueling envelope was fully explored, validated, and shown to be significantly larger in all axes than the KC-135's envelope.
......

The all-electric ARBS provides highly accurate, reliable in-flight refueling, with a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. Modern fly-by-wire technology incorporated in the ARBS provides enhanced controllability and includes an automatic load alleviation system that greatly aids the boom operator -- as well as the receiver aircraft's pilot -- during refueling operations.

I see the fuel rate is noted as having "a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. " but that can't be right because I researched a bit for Boeing Adv Boom capability and it showed: "A fuel transfer rate of 600 gallons per minute minimizes refueling time." ( http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/boom.html ) Which would be less than the KC-135, so something is screwed up.

edit: OK so I found this on Northrop Grumman's website: "Maximum fuel offload rate for the boom is 8,000 lbs./min." ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/delivering.html ) Can someone translate the numbers for comparison? Thanks.

Tugg

[Edited 2008-08-05 17:52:54]
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
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:47 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
OK so I found this on Northrop Grumman's website: "Maximum fuel offload rate for the boom is 8,000 lbs./min." ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/delivering.html ) Can someone translate the numbers for comparison? Thanks.

It depends on the temperature, but it's somewhere around 6.7lbs/gal. So 8000lbs/min works out to 1194gal/min.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:12 am

Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.

"Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton said the bid strategy and process won't change "drastically" from that which led to the Northrop Grumman award.

Of "90-some" complaints filed by Boeing, GAO upheld eight, said Payton, who oversaw the process that led to Northrop's choice.

"We had some judgments that were viewed to be unreasonable," she said in an interview last week, her first public remarks on the GAO decision. "These are very easily correctable areas," she said.

"We'll want to clarify the record and we had a few areas that we are going to make corrective actions on," Payton said."

So it seems that the AF considers only 8 complaints upheld on a single contract isn't that big a deal. Guess that over 50% of the complaints would have had to have been upheld before the AF took notice.  Smile
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:57 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.

Now, now, no one is trying to "ensure" that anyone gets it or anything. The problem has always been that based on how the bid is written, one plane or the other is likely to win. And based on the fact that the "KC-30" bid won the first time and barring significant changes in the request or significant price changes by the bidders, the outcome is likely to be similar.

The key thing is that the process has to be up front, requirements clearly delineated, and fairly communicated.

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
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 5161
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:57 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.

"Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton said the bid strategy and process won't change "drastically" from that which led to the Northrop Grumman award.

The new bids are no longer being handled by the USAF. They are being handled by the DoD directly.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:57 am



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 4):
It depends on the temperature, but it's somewhere around 6.7lbs/gal. So 8000lbs/min works out to 1194gal/min.

And I forgot to say: Thanks! Big grin

OK, so that's the 1,200 gal they were saying. Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.

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
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:54 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.

The 600gpm is for the centerline drogue-and-probe system, not the boom. Boeing lists the boom as 900gpm plus, and the wing pod drogues as 400gpm:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/specs.html

As I understand it, most smaller aircraft are unable to take fuel any faster than a KC-135 can deliver it, so increasing the rate won't help in many cases. OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:01 am



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 9):
OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.

 checkmark 

Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?
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.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:18 pm



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 7):
The new bids are no longer being handled by the USAF. They are being handled by the DoD directly.

Since the USAF did such a bang up job the first time, we get to be dictated to the second time around...brilliant.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:24 pm



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 11):
Since the USAF did such a bang up job the first time, we get to be dictated to the second time around...brilliant.

Just replace first time with second time, and second time with third time.

The first attempt was the lease agreement for KC-767s that John McCain helped torpedo. (And for good reason, I might add)
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:10 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 1):
I think the KC30 is much to capable for the USAF.

If all you need is a pick-up truck, why buy an 18 wheeler?

Quoting F4N (Reply 2):
I expect a split order to eliminate another protest to GAO, minimize political interference and maximize the benefits offered by the contenders.

That won't happen.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
Over the 40-month flight test phase, the ARBS successfully refueled numerous aircraft to include F-16 fighter aircraft, NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, and proximity testing with the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B MRTT. In total the ARBS accomplished 80 contacts and logged more than 146 flight hours during 122 sorties. Numerous wet and dry contacts were made at various altitudes and airspeeds, confirming both the ease of operation and the high nominal fuel flow rate. The large ARBS in-flight refueling envelope was fully explored, validated, and shown to be significantly larger in all axes than the KC-135's envelope.

The envelope is larger because the EADS Boom is longer, not for any other reason. But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
I see the fuel rate is noted as having "a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. " but that can't be right because I researched a bit for Boeing Adv Boom capability and it showed: "A fuel transfer rate of 600 gallons per minute minimizes refueling time." ( http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/boom.html ) Which would be less than the KC-135, so something is screwed up.

Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
"We had some judgments that were viewed to be unreasonable," she said in an interview last week, her first public remarks on the GAO decision. "These are very easily correctable areas," she said.

"Some judgements that were viewed unreasonable"? This is not "Joe Sixpack" buying a Chevy over a Ford, lady. This is about evaluating equipment for the troops fairly and equilly. You, and your co-horts didn't do that. What Sue and her "associates" did may have been illegal. That part of the investigation is still going on.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
OK, so that's the 1,200 gal they were saying. Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.

Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.

BTW, it seems both the KC-135 and KC-30B can dump fuel at about the same rate of over 12,000lbs/minute.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.

So why didn't you take the post of scrimbl and Rwessel in consideration, being posted hours before yours?

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 9):
OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 10):
checkmark

Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?

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
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 6):
The key thing is that the process has to be up front, requirements clearly delineated, and fairly communicated.

The only thing that has been clearly communicated is that Congress is only going to fund a program that includes an airplane made by Boeing. If a split buy isn't in the cards, none of this matters anyway.
 
YWG747
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:19 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:58 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 10):
Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?

That would constitute future planing.
Which, lets face it, most governments don't do such a thing.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:37 pm

Is there a reason a split order won't happen? Both aircraft seem to be different enough that a split order could actually be good for the AF. The 767 for the smaller end and the A330 for the larger. It would give them more versatility.

Another option is both Boeing and Airbus give one of their tankers to the AF and let them actually test the aircraft in the wild. Tests would be identical, even flying next to each other to assure maximum comparability. Let the AF test each one for about a month in all the different areas it needs to be tested then they can make their decision. Either a split order, or choose one.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4925
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The envelope is larger because the EADS Boom is longer, not for any other reason. But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?

Why does anything have to be wrong? From the context of the numbers it sounds like the 122 sorties is from the very first flight, in which case I wouldn't expect contact to be made for a number of sorties since every test program is incremental - going from basic flights with it stowed, to deployment and retraction a number of times, to performance with a closing receiver, and then to eventual contact, and then to passing fuel. You ain't going to do all that in the first couple of flights.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:56 pm

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/06/america/Tanker-Fight.php

Quote:
The final version of the request for proposals is expected to be released to both companies on Aug. 15. The new bids are due Oct. 1 and a decision is expected by the end of the year.

Boy, they're not hanging around!

Quote:
The new round will be limited to the eight issues where government auditors found problems with the initial process. Both companies have indicated their bids will be similar to their original plane designs.

Which is what Gates said they would do.

Quote:
Changes in the draft request for proposals include extra credit for exceeding the government's threshold for the amount fuel that can be used for refilling other aircraft.

Interesting!
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.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:37 pm



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 9):
As I understand it, most smaller aircraft are unable to take fuel any faster than a KC-135 can deliver it, so increasing the rate won't help in many cases. OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.

Unless the AF acquires a fleet of A380 Transports with a special refueling connection, it seems unlikely that any aircraft needs to receive over 900 GPM. A possible alternate would be for the KC-45 able to receive faster so the plane leaving station can top off the next tanker.

The 900 GPM was considered back when there were a bevy of B-52's, is the airforce buying many really large planes currently - the trend is toward smaller.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:48 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
That won't happen.

That is, of course, what was said about the possibility of NG/EADS winning in the first place.

F4N
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:00 pm

I wonder how long before Boeing's supporters in Congress step in?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:26 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?

Lots more to a boom than just passing fuel :

Safety testing
Flutter testing
Boom flight control checking
Boom travel limits
Boom pilot director lighting, boom markings
Lighting on tanker aircraft and boom
Cameras
Boomer console

They are basically doing a tanker clearance and the receiver clearance, and the boom clearance all at once.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.

You only know KC-136 numbers is seems, the KC-10 boom is cleared to 8000 lb/min, its aircraft clearance rates above the KC-135 levels (6000 lb/min max) are :

7000 lb/min - B-1B
7300 lb/min - B-52, C-5
7800 lb/min - E-4. C-5A, KC-10
8400 lb/min - C-17

Seems the extra capability the KC-30 would bring is used today on the KC-10, just not on the inferior KC-135.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:06 pm

According to FlightGlobal the key changes for bid include:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...etition-makes-3-major-changes.html

1. - Giving official credit for having the capacity to offload more fuel

2. - Decoupling of maintenance and fuel cost estimates from acquisition costs

3. - Extending the lifecycle period from 25 years to 40 years


So if 1 is now officially important, might Boeing offer a -400 (-300?) variant of the 767?


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
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:14 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 22):
I wonder how long before Boeing's supporters in Congress step in?

Aren't they all on holiday now? If they can tear themselves away from their pools and pina coladas they might run their mouths again I suppose.   

Here's a short Flight article
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...etition-makes-3-major-changes.html

It reports three major changes from the original RFP
1) Credit for extra fuel offload over the minimum specified
2) Life cycle period of 40 years rather than 25
3) Decoupling of acquisition costs from ongoing maintenance and fuel costs

[apologies for duplicate of Tugger's post]

[Edited 2008-08-06 15:44:49]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:06 pm

Someone was kind enough to send me the the new draft RFP.

First observation, this is revision 6 of the previous RFP, it is not a totally new document, it is only 23 pages long.

And this RFP amendment was issued by WPAFB, i.e. still by the USAF, the contracting officer is based at WPAFB.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:21 am

With about 45 days from the final RFP to proposal submission I doubt if Boeing will have the time to change their proposal. They might have already worked up a -400 proposal, maybe even a 777 based proposal, but I doubt it.

It gets back to Old Sue basically saying the GAO decisions were no big deal and we're going ahead with NG/Airbus. Cost factors will not be considered important as the AF would loose face if they changed the award to Boeing.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:45 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
With about 45 days from the final RFP to proposal submission I doubt if Boeing will have the time to change their proposal. They might have already worked up a -400 proposal, maybe even a 777 based proposal, but I doubt it.

In fact both NG and Boeing have had a lot longer than 45 days to think about this. There will have been over 200 days between Boeing lodging their appeal and having to submit bids by October 1 for the new RFP.

Personally, I don't see Boeing changing their bid.
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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:41 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 28):
Personally, I don't see Boeing changing their bid.

Personally, I see a well-timed protest to get this thing in the hands of the next administration. Boeing cannot win with this gang.  no 
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:29 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 29):
Boeing cannot win with this gang.

What is, after all, totally irrelevant. Not the best plane, whichever it might be, for the government/personal needs od AF officials is to be found, but the best for the operational needs.
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
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:13 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 28):
Personally, I don't see Boeing changing their bid.

Same, they have already changed the manager on the tanker area, I cannot see them changing much else. They may try adding the winglets, but I don't think they will, in my view it will interfere too much with the pod refueling.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 29):
I see a well-timed protest to get this thing in the hands of the next administration.

Boeing and NG have 10 days after the RFP is released to take it to the GAO, otherwise they are saying they are happy with it (the is after they have the opportunity to comment on the present draft), that window will close around Oct 11. The only other opportunity to protest is after the decision, and that will be under similar guise as their last protest, but the DoD/USAF should have fixed the holes the GAO found.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The envelope is larger because the EADS Boom is longer, not for any other reason. But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?

Why does anything have to be wrong? From the context of the numbers it sounds like the 122 sorties is from the very first flight, in which case I wouldn't expect contact to be made for a number of sorties since every test program is incremental - going from basic flights with it stowed, to deployment and retraction a number of times, to performance with a closing receiver, and then to eventual contact, and then to passing fuel. You ain't going to do all that in the first couple of flights.



Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 20):
The 900 GPM was considered back when there were a bevy of B-52's, is the airforce buying many really large planes currently - the trend is toward smaller.

The 900GPM the B-52 was capable of handling was less than the 1000GPM the KC-135 is capable of off-loading. But, other recievers, like the C-135 versions, E-3, E-4/VC-25, C-5, E-6, etc. could on-load at 1000GPM. The now retired C-141 and the C-130 could handle the 900 GPM on-load rate.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?

Lots more to a boom than just passing fuel :

Safety testing
Flutter testing
Boom flight control checking
Boom travel limits
Boom pilot director lighting, boom markings
Lighting on tanker aircraft and boom
Cameras
Boomer console

They are basically doing a tanker clearance and the receiver clearance, and the boom clearance all at once.

That is basicly correct. But, the EADS Boom has been in flight testing since 2006, testing all the factors you mentioned. At the same time, Boeing flight tested their GEN V Boom (on the current KC-767A/J), which certified in half the sorties, flight hours, and 3Xs the number of wet and dry contacts. Now, some of this can be attributed to the number of receiver Boeing had access to, for the KC-767, compared to the fewer number EADS had with their KC-310 test bed aircraft, that still doesn't explain the total difference in numbers. I might add, the EADS test KC-310 has not refueled any RAAF F-111C/Gs, which is capable of (beginning) to receive fuel at 6,000lbs/min. To date, I have only found data on two receiver types of receivers refueled by the KC-310 test bed aircraft, a RNAF F-16A and a NATO E-3B. Also, the KC-30 has not refueled any aircraft yet, although it has given dry contacts from the WARPs with a RAAF F/A-18B.

BTW, I have noticed the RAAF KC-30B has not refueled as a receiver, yet. I would have thought it would have by now, since it has been in flight testing for about 1.5 years now. The GAO report questioned the strenght of the KC-30B receptical, compared to other large/heavy receivers. Does that mean a redisign is needed for the receptical on the KC-30/-45?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.

You only know KC-136 numbers is seems, the KC-10 boom is cleared to 8000 lb/min, its aircraft clearance rates above the KC-135 levels (6000 lb/min max) are :

7000 lb/min - B-1B
7300 lb/min - B-52, C-5
7800 lb/min - E-4. C-5A, KC-10
8400 lb/min - C-17

There may be some confusion here with the tanker off-load rates. As you know, temperture effects the weight of fuel. Using the average weight of JP-8 fuel (about 6.6-6.7 lbs per US gallon), and the maximum rate of 1,000 GPM transfer rate from the KC-135, it comes out to 6700lbs per minute transfer rate on a "standard day temperture" (for the USAF, that is 70 degrees F, or about 21.1 degrees C). So, the variation in transfer rate, based on temperture is between 6000lbs-7000lbs/minute. The KC-10 off-load rate was upgraded to 1200 GPM, or about 8,040 lbs. But, in actual usage, it is about the same rate as the KC-135 Boom (which is the Boeing GEN III Boom design). BTW, the KC-30/-45 would be the same as the KC-10, at a maximum off-load rate of 1200GPM.

Now, the receiver on-load rates don't make any sense. I have scene recent publications indicating new on-load rate of about what you said. I just don't believe them. The B-1, B-52, C-5, E-4, C-17, and KC-10 have not been recently modified to receive fuel any faster than they have historicly. What is interesting is the E-10 is also on this same list. To my knowlwdge, the only E-10 has sat on the ground at E-Systems since Boeing delivered it a few months ago, and it hasn't been modified for anything, yet, including the receiver air refueling kit. I will track down each of the air refueling manuals for each one and get back to you. I question why the USAF also has not said other large/heavy airplanes have not had their maximum on-load rates upgraded in publications. These airplanes include the B-2, E-3, VC-25, KC/EC/RC/WC-135, C/EC/AC-130, E-8, E-18, and USN E-6.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:12 pm

I think if the USAF wants a larger tanker then this is the RFP version they should've published last year and simply stated up front that extra credit would be given for more fuel off-load capability. They would've avoided this entire mess from the beginning. Unfortunately, now that they've stated they're going to give more credit, but at the same time re-issued the RFP under a highly compressed time line, it's obvious they're going through the motions just to get the tanker they really want, which is the NG/EADS bird. And because of that, I would not be surprised if in the next few days Boeing announces that they will no-bid on this RFP. If that were to happen, I'd be curious to see how much John Sydney McCain will get involved in order to assure a competitive and level playing field, which was his mantra when he stepped in on behalf of EADS/Airbus back in 2006.

[Edited 2008-08-07 16:24:04]
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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:43 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 33):
I think if the USAF wants a larger tanker then this is the RFP version they should've published last year and simply stated up front that extra credit would be given for more fuel off-load capability. They would've avoided this entire mess from the beginning.

I think that the AF originally planned on the 767 and McCain got them to look at the NG/Airbus option to have competition and get the best (lowest?) price from that competition.

The more the Generals looked at it the less they cared about price - why buy a Buick when you can get a Caddy. After all, it's not their money.

"Acceptable" is a term some generals use only for stuff intended for enlisted personnel. If you're talking about the General's toys "only the best will do".

The 767 would have performed the job that was originally needed to be done, but acceptable isn't going to make it on the tanker order. We'll pay more, but we're so far in debt that who really cares.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:16 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
They might have already worked up a -400 proposal, maybe even a 777 based proposal, but I doubt it.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
Boeing and NG have 10 days after the RFP is released to take it to the GAO, otherwise they are saying they are happy with it (the is after they have the opportunity to comment on the present draft), that window will close around Oct 11. The only other opportunity to protest is after the decision, and that will be under similar guise as their last protest, but the DoD/USAF should have fixed the holes the GAO found.

All issues with the RFP should be contested to the GAO before the award is announced - a lot of taxpayer time and money would be saved.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:19 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 34):

The more the Generals looked at it the less they cared about price - why buy a Buick when you can get a Caddy. After all, it's not their money.

"Acceptable" is a term some generals use only for stuff intended for enlisted personnel. If you're talking about the General's toys "only the best will do".

The 767 would have performed the job that was originally needed to be done, but acceptable isn't going to make it on the tanker order. We'll pay more, but we're so far in debt that who really cares.

Why do you take it here? You have absolutely no idea about what the cost is. The KC-30 very likely is the better over all value. And as for all the people who keep talking about "larger than any real-world scenarios" fail to acknowledge that the tanking capability is not about the training exercises that the 135 et.al. go on now, the capability must be maximized for future combat possibilities. And while many perfectly valid scenarios can be developed to support the 135 or 767 capabilities, so can an equal number be developed to support ht KC-30.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
maybe even a 777 based proposal

Will people PLEASE STOP with the 777 cra.... stuff! The 777 is NOT a VIABLE option. It is an option but only if Boeing wants to loose the bid! It is too large and expensive. Yes, is does have superior cargo, troop, and fuel capacity to the 330 but its engines are very large, and its take off performance is too divergent from the bid criteria, and the airframe cost is too high! Boeing knows this but the popular press does not, they just think "larger". And I would expect a much educated reasoning here in this board.

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
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:27 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 6):
The problem has always been that based on how the bid is written, one plane or the other is likely to win.

Maybe, but financial incentives should also be important. A worse plane, at half the price, is a better plane. At least in the real world. Hence the winner cannot be known before the bids come in.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 33):
I think if the USAF wants a larger tanker then this is the RFP version they should've published last year and simply stated up front that extra credit would be given for more fuel off-load capability. They would've avoided this entire mess from the beginning.

They thought it was too obvious to mention.

Or, alternatively, Airbus convinced them it made a better warfighter (causing the USAF to win future victories) and the USAF agreed. I don't see much wrong with that. Winning wars is the goal, not pleasing Boeing.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:44 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
Why do you take it here? You have absolutely no idea about what the cost is.

The costs have not been made public, but the indication was that the NG/Airbus option was more expensive when ALL costs for deployment and maintenance are considered. For some types of equipment I prefer the lowest cost "acceptable" option, leaving more money for improvements in the real war fighters, like fighters, advances in weapons, etc. Unless the AF has decided to hang some missiles under the KC-X's wings I consider it a support to war fighters.

The top brass have not always been that bright when it came to programs - the Navy is having a little problem with a destroyer these days as noted in another post.

i also believe that there needs to be some attention paid to the amount of funds that will be needed to rebuild the military after Iraq. Extra money paid on one program may well take away from another. That is where there needs to be some balance in spending between "acceptable" and "better'.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:07 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 33):
I think if the USAF wants a larger tanker then this is the RFP version they should've published last year and simply stated up front that extra credit would be given for more fuel off-load capability.

The USAF has been consistent all the time, they have never specified any size for the tanker.

The USAF has also been consistent all the time for the extra credit, the provided Boeing with the information at the pre solicitation, and all the updates through the RFP. Boeing was given extra credit for their aircraft above the RFP, and Boeing upgraded the fuel capacity of the KC-767AT above the KC-767 to gain extra credit.

The USAF motion to dismiss makes it very clear what the USAF intended, the GAO essentially agreed with the USAF position, just the made a mistake with one line in the RFP which was in error.

This is what the USAF said

"Moreover, once Boeing learned of the Air Force's interpretation of the fuel off load requirement during the Mid-Term update, and certainly at the Pre-FPR briefing, it should have filed its protest within 10 days of receiving these briefings."

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 33):
And because of that, I would not be surprised if in the next few days Boeing announces that they will no-bid on this RFP.

This is not a new RFP, it is seeking additional information for the existing RFP, it is following the GAO decision to the letter. Boeing has had over 2 years to get its act together (or if believe the marketing blurb, 50 years years of tanker experience with little investment into new products...).

Boeing (Dave Bowman) has already said they will stay with the 767-200LRF (AW&ST Jul 21)
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:29 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
The USAF has been consistent all the time, they have never specified any size for the tanker.

They were inconsistent with their treatment of each of the bidders. That according to the GAO.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
The USAF has also been consistent all the time for the extra credit,

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Where in the previous RFP version did they state extra credit would be given for more fuel off-load?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
This is not a new RFP, it is seeking additional information for the existing RFP,

Duh. I did say "re-issue". Which is what it is since there is a new start and finish timeline.
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.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:42 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
"Moreover, once Boeing learned of the Air Force's interpretation of the fuel off load requirement during the Mid-Term update, and certainly at the Pre-FPR briefing, it should have filed its protest within 10 days of receiving these briefings."

The GAO specifically denied this protest of the protest by the USAF. It denied the USAF and allowed the Boeing Protest.

Zeke, I understand your cheerleading for the NG/EADS team but at least be honest about it and not bring up old disallowed quotes, you know this was already decided. Or you should.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
The USAF motion to dismiss makes it very clear what the USAF intended, the GAO essentially agreed with the USAF position, just the made a mistake with one line in the RFP which was in error.

This is false. 100% false. There is nothing here that is true. Even that the USAF motion to dismiss made clear what the USAF intended is 100% false.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:23 pm

The USAF must follow the recommendations of the RAND AOA for this (KC-X) program. The easiest way to explain why the larger 777 is an acceptable candidate platform by the USAF is by reading that 24 page AOA Executive Summary. I have pasted the link to that AOA below. The entire report is 1500 pages long and was commissioned by the USAF as required by the procurement regulations and Congress. The lack of an AOA was a key issue in the tanker lease scandal.

If you go to page 20 of the AOA (PDF file) you will find the section titled "cost effectiveness of alternatives". There you will find why the 777 and other platforms (medium and large) must be fairly considered by the USAF in this competition. Any comments officially or otherwise by those in responsible positions within the USAF that the USAF only wanted the medium sized platform were in contravention of the AOA, stated policy of the KC-X program office, the RFP and federal procurement law. Look at the mess this misinformation has caused. They should be held accountable for misleading those who believed them.

Link to AOA.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:55 pm

TopicBird,

Thanks for the link. Just skimmed it, but one thing did catch my eye:

"The second consideration favoring later tanker recapitalization would be the existence of critical near-term constraints on spending that would make a major near-term acquisition program very unattractive."

With two carrier battle groups now heading to Iran the AF might have even more constraints on their spending for a tanker. Clearly a need to take the time to see how the last days of the current Administration work out before planning $100 Billion acquisitions,
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:06 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 43):
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

Ok I read the AOA, but nothing is close to what you are intimating. All the AOA says is this is the list of aircraft that should be considered. We know at least two of the listed airplanes were considered. In fact they all were, but operational minimums knocked all but two out - the manufacturers could have thrown up bids including each listed in the AOA. Since it does cost real money to prepare a proper bid, the manufacturers concentrated on those that could meet the minimums.

Boeing needs to get over the 767. In any objective review, the 767 will come up short with the A330. This is just an example of a 10 year newer airplane with 10 years additional research with better flight characteristics. Just the way it is.

However, if Boeing can get anywhere close to the operational minimums, I believe Boeing would have a better case with the 747. The Air Force wants big, the 747 is big in spades. In addition at least 3 variations are already in service with the Air Force so some infrastructure is in place.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:53 am

Ca

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 45):
We know at least two of the listed airplanes were considered. In fact they all were, but operational minimums knocked all but two out

Can you please explain what you mean in more detail about operational minimums knocking the other platforms out?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:38 am

Maximum take-off distance and fuel offload. I do not have the entire list.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:58 am

If these larger aircraft were never viable candidates, why did the USAF allow them in the competition? In its response to Boeing's protest, the USAF said Boeing could have offered any of the AOA listed aircraft and most specifically the 777.

Boeing spent a lot of their money making sure everyone believed that their "right sized" 767 was the only aircraft that could be considered to win. All the others (including the 777) were too big for the ramps and runways. The USAF never [officially] spoke of this - just Boeing and their spin-masters. It was said and repeated so often that it became the accepted gospel and attributed to the USAF.

Yet, I will say that the recently departed AF Chief of Staff Gen. Moseley did tell the Air Force Magazine in April 2004 that he wanted a medium sized aircraft because of his experiences in Afghanistan. He may already regret these comments (see below) because they seem to show his bias for anything larger than the 767. What was his role in determining the KPP's and other parameters in the KC-X program? Did Boeing take his comments to heart and that is why they did not offer the 777?

Remember, just days after they lost, Boeing said they were discouraged from offering the larger 777 by the USAF and Boeing supporters in Congress were angry at the USAF saying they were misled in offering the smaller medium sized 767.

On the question of looking at some airframe other than a 767-class airplane, he said that a larger aircraft would sink "through the asphalt in the desert," while one with a longer wingspan would be "too big because we can't park enough to do Navy, Marine, coalition, and Air Force assets." A smaller aircraft, he said, would not "carry the load for us."


http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...s/2004/April%202004/0404watch.aspx
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:22 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 48):
Yet, I will say that the recently departed AF Chief of Staff Gen. Moseley did tell the Air Force Magazine in April 2004 that he wanted a medium sized aircraft because of his experiences in Afghanistan.

thanks for the quote - I guess it's a lesson learned and then forgotten.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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