Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:53 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 2):
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,

I expect this too.

regards

Flyglobal
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:13 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 48):
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.

The USAF did not allow or disallow any specific type, the RFP specified minima that needed to be satisfied. It was up to the bidders to decide which planes to offer in their bids.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 48):
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.

It was a masterpiece of PR spin. Unfortunately for Boeing, it didn't work.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 48):
Did Boeing take his comments to heart and that is why they did not offer the 777?

The problem is, Boeing has never provided any evidence to support their claims of having been told not to bid the 777. The harsh reality is, a 767 tanker is all Boeing wanted to offer at this time - the 767 line is closer to shutdown than any other Boeing line, and they don't want to dilute the very lucrative 777 line with military orders (just yet anyway).

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.

This Leeham article clears up the whole size issue for anyone that's interested.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
The Air Force replied, "The Contracting Officer is unaware of any USAF official or any member of the KC-X program team, who has made any official comments on USAF preference for one tanker platform over another."
...
In the Rand Corp. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) conducted specifically for the eventual KC-X competition, Rand concluded "after about two years of extensive analysis that the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner," notes a person close to the procurement process. Boeing's KC-767 and Northrop's KC-30 fall into the medium category; the KC-30, although about a third larger than the KC-767, nonetheless classifies as a medium airliner at 512,000 lbs. The KC-777 would have been based on the 777-200LRF, which has a maximum take-off weight of 766,000 lbs, according to Boeing's website---and wouldn't have classified as a medium tanker. For all the complaints about the KC-30 being a "large" tanker, in fact it isn't by the Rand definition---it's merely "larger" than the KC-767.

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.
 
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 6:50 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 51):
The problem is, Boeing has never provided any evidence to support their claims of having been told not to bid the 777

Boeing did not but their biggest and most vocal supporter in Congress Rep. Norm Dicks (the vice-chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee) did. The most recent example was during the U.S. House Armed Services Air & Land Subcommittee hearing that the GAO and Pentagon folks attended about a month ago. Here is what Congressman Dicks said to the Pentagon's John Young during that hearing:


I am very troubled by this whole thing....what bothers me here was that we were misled -- the Congress was misled. (Air Force) Sec. Wynne testified before our committee and I was talking and asking him what - how are we going forward on this and he says... (Rep. Dicks now quoting Sec. Wynne) "So as we look at this we would tell you that first -- our highest motivation is actually medium sized tankers then our [sic] highest motivation is mixed fleet - our last thing we want to do is have a whole fleet of large airplanes." (end of Wynne's quote)

Rep. Dick's continues...

The A330 is larger than the KC-10 and so to describe both of these as medium size tankers is not accurate -- This (Rep. Dicks emphasizing with hands spread wide) is a great big airplane.....but I feel we were misled - I mean Mr. Miller (Note: Mr. Miller was Mr. Wynne' s assistant who just retired is currently under investigation by the DOD-IG for his trying to help Boeing sell more C-17's. He shared a 'chart' with Senate staff which has now got him in trouble) came up day after day with all these charts -- we want medium sized tankers -- we want medium sized tankers -- this was in the testimony and all of a sudden lo and behold we get this great big monster that doesn't fit into any of our military construction facilities...."


Rep. Dicks goes on but you get the picture. I wonder when the media is going to dig into all this? While you have one group from the KC-X program office saying "all" the AOA aircraft are candidates, you have the senior leaders in the Pentagon telling Congress and others something different. Not good and not fair. I suspect this along with the nuclear errors - helped them out the door.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4919
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:52 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 52):
The A330 is larger than the KC-10 and so to describe both of these as medium size tankers is not accurate -- This (Rep. Dicks emphasizing with hands spread wide) is a great big airplane.

Doesn't it rather depend on how you look at it as to whether its larger or not? I mean, according to the Leeham article the KC-30 has an MTOW of 512,000lbs (Wikipedia has it at around 507,000lbs) and the KC-10 has an MTOW of 590,000lbs - over 10% heavier than the KC-30!

It seems he took the Air Force quite literally in them saying they don't want large airplanes...
 
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 9:08 pm

The KC-30 is very close to the large category in the AOA, but is still in the medium category. Using the same criteria - the KC-10 would be in the large category.

The USAF leaders apparently still wanted the 767. After all, these were the same cast of characters involved in promoting the 767 in the lease deal. Former AF Sec. Wynne had John Young's job at that time (procurement czar) and had his hand slapped from that scandal. Because of this, Sen. McCain was reluctant to confirm him as AF Sec. but he was. Sec. Wynne's solution was to bring Mr. Miller on board to make sure everything was open and transparent. We now know it was not.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:22 pm

Anyone else get the impression that the USAF won't be so kind to Boeing as well when it comes time for CSAR-X to be awarded? Me thinks LM has it in the bag and after Boeing pissed and moaned about KC-X I'm not so sure that the USAF continues to reward Boeing for it's outdated platforms.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:24 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 52):
I am very troubled by this whole thing....what bothers me here was that we were misled -- the Congress was misled. (Air Force) Sec. Wynne testified before our committee and I was talking and asking him what - how are we going forward on this and he says... (Rep. Dicks now quoting Sec. Wynne) "So as we look at this we would tell you that first -- our highest motivation is actually medium sized tankers then our [sic] highest motivation is mixed fleet - our last thing we want to do is have a whole fleet of large airplanes." (end of Wynne's quote)

Which is something completely different to telling Boeing not to bid the 777. What the AF secretary says to a congressional committee is just about irrelevant. What the RFP says is what matters; the RFP did not specify size. Boeing was never told not to bid a 777 based tanker. It's my firm belief the only plane Boeing was interested in offering was a 767 based tanker, so twisting this size issue suited their position. The Leeham article I quoted puts the whole size issue in perspective.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 52):
Rep. Dick's continues...

The A330 is larger than the KC-10 and so to describe both of these as medium size tankers is not accurate -- This (Rep. Dicks emphasizing with hands spread wide) is a great big airplane.....but I feel we were misled - I mean Mr. Miller (Note: Mr. Miller was Mr. Wynne' s assistant who just retired is currently under investigation by the DOD-IG for his trying to help Boeing sell more C-17's. He shared a 'chart' with Senate staff which has now got him in trouble) came up day after day with all these charts -- we want medium sized tankers -- we want medium sized tankers -- this was in the testimony and all of a sudden lo and behold we get this great big monster that doesn't fit into any of our military construction facilities...."

And here's the problem, Dicks is just Boeing's congressional mouthpiece. If Dicks knew anything bout the AOA, he would have known (or maybe he just conveniently forgot) that the KC-30 is a medium-sized tanker as defined by Rand's study. Everyone knew that, only Boeing's PR spin about the KC-767 being the right size ever cast the KC-30 as a "large tanker". The KC-30 is a medium-sized tanker, it just happens to be bigger than the KC-767.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 52):
While you have one group from the KC-X program office saying "all" the AOA aircraft are candidates, you have the senior leaders in the Pentagon telling Congress and others something different. Not good and not fair.

Again, all that matters is what is specified in the RFP. The RFP does not say what size the tanker needs to be, it simply specifies the minimum amount of fuel it needs to be able to offload.
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.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:28 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 55):
Anyone else get the impression that the USAF won't be so kind to Boeing as well when it comes time for CSAR-X to be awarded? Me thinks LM has it in the bag and after Boeing pissed and moaned about KC-X I'm not so sure that the USAF continues to reward Boeing for it's outdated platforms.

If we're to believe the USAF plays by the rules and treats all vendors equally - very important to ensuring the public's trust and confidence in their decision making process - then they will not take such punitive actions against Boeing on the CSAR-X contract.

But, then again, we've seen that the USAF cannot play by the rules and treat all vendors equally, so maybe you've got something there.  Wink
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.
 
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 10:47 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 56):
Boeing was never told not to bid a 777 based tanker.

Boeing's Jim Albaugh seems to say here that they were...The $35 billion question is exactly how they were discouraged by the USAF.


Dicks called the size issue "most damning of all," adding that the Pentagon had pulled a "bait and switch" in telling Boeing that it wanted a medium-size tanker, such as the 767.
Had Boeing known that the Air Force wanted more, it would have bid the 777," he said.

Boeing defense chief Jim Albaugh made that same point at an investor conference in New York."If they had wanted a big airplane, obviously we could offer the 777," Albaugh said, "and we were discouraged from offering the 777."


Source:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ce/2004263690_boeinghearing06.html
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:57 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 58):
The $35 billion question is exactly how they were discouraged by the USAF.

Exactly. The Leeham article even suggests that Boeing has subsequently modified its position on that claim.

It all seems to come down to Boeing's interpretation of the words "we want a medium-size tanker, such as the 767." Now, you could conclude that those words mean "we want a medium-size tanker, such as the 767 or A330", but Boeing seems to have interpreted them as "we want a 767 tanker", which is quite funny really.

The AF has also denied that anyone ever told Boeing officially not to bid the 777. As far as I know, Boeing has not produced anything documented to back up their claim. It's one thing to claim to have been "discouraged", it's something else to be able to substantiate that claim. I can't help thinking that if Boeing did have an official communication from the AF saying "don't bid a 777-based tanker, we don't want it", it would have been published in Boeing ads in every newspaper in the US and fly-posted all over Washington, DC.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 58):
Dicks called the size issue "most damning of all," adding that the Pentagon had pulled a "bait and switch" in telling Boeing that it wanted a medium-size tanker, such as the 767.
Had Boeing known that the Air Force wanted more, it would have bid the 777," he said.

He's just blowing hot air and, again, conveniently forgetting the KC-30 is a medium-sized tanker. The AF selected exactly what it wanted - a medium-sized tanker. They just selected one that happened to be larger than the KC-767.
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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:52 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 59):
As far as I know, Boeing has not produced anything documented to back up their claim. It's one thing to claim to have been "discouraged", it's something else to be able to substantiate that claim. I can't help thinking that if Boeing did have an official communication from the AF saying "don't bid a 777-based tanker, we don't want it", it would have been published in Boeing ads in every newspaper in the US and fly-posted all over Washington, DC.

 checkmark 
If there was such confirmation, it should have come out during the GAO's review. It is one thing to do what ever possible to help your District, but pushing a position that just does not exist (nd you know it doesn't exist) borders on criminal.
 
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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:14 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 37):
A worse plane, at half the price, is a better plane. At least in the real world.

But in a wartime situation, can you say that is true?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 56):
And here's the problem, Dicks is just Boeing's congressional mouthpiece.

Yes, except for the position he commands I would say the congress people representing Washington and Alabama should be ignored completely as ANYTHING they claim and say may be (and likely is) directly influenced by the benefit to be derived by their state.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 58):

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 56):
Boeing was never told not to bid a 777 based tanker.

Boeing's Jim Albaugh seems to say here that they were...The $35 billion question is exactly how they were discouraged by the USAF.


Dicks called the size issue "most damning of all," adding that the Pentagon had pulled a "bait and switch" in telling Boeing that it wanted a medium-size tanker, such as the 767.
Had Boeing known that the Air Force wanted more, it would have bid the 777," he said.

Boeing defense chief Jim Albaugh made that same point at an investor conference in New York."If they had wanted a big airplane, obviously we could offer the 777," Albaugh said, "and we were discouraged from offering the 777."

The whole problem, the whole lie, and what makes Boeing redirection to the bid into "It's not fair!" so brilliant, is the fact that Boeing simply does not have a direct competitor for this bid. The 777 simply does not meet the criteria better than the 330. In my mind the 767-400 would be the best to walk the line on cost, size, and capability (but I admit I don't know much on what the specs on the bird would be).

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
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:24 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 40):
They were inconsistent with their treatment of each of the bidders. That according to the GAO.

Only for the "net ready" electronics/capability. It is disingenuous to suggest they were inconsistent throughout the whole process, or even in the refueling aspects.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 40):
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?

Read the USAF motion to dismiss, and the original RFP. The IFARA analysis used all the capability of the aircraft, the GAO did not have a problem with that, that is really where the extra credit came into play, the virtual fly off between the types.

I believe Boeing has failed in its real objective, to get the GAO to rule on the size of the aircraft, or the upper bound of the amount of fuel to offload.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 40):
Duh. I did say "re-issue". Which is what it is since there is a new start and finish timeline.

This is am amendment 6 to the RFP, not a re-issue. The amendment outlines the changes, it does not re-issue the whole package, just like previous amendments.

"As a result of this amendment, proposal receipt date is hereby extended to 1 October 2008. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment."

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 41):
The GAO specifically denied this protest of the protest by the USAF. It denied the USAF and allowed the Boeing Protest.

True, all based upon one sentence in the RFP, ""[n]o consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives.". This was a technicality Boeing got the USAF on, nothing more, and it still remains in the new amendment. This was clearly an English lesson for the USAF, it did not change what they wanted.

The GAO also indicated that Boeing was informed of the USAF position, prior to and during the solicitation, and the extra fuel they had on the KC-767AT was used in the IFARA analysis. Boeing was given extra credit for the aircraft, the USAF was not inconstant in their handeling of the bidders in this aspect. The GAO was not wrong in their decision, the USAF document was in error.

This is not a case of the USAF giving only NG extra credit, both parties got extra credit. Boeing's real gripe was that NG got more credit than what Boeing did, they did not complain that the USAF incorrectly gave Boeing extra credit as well (no surprise).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 42):
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.

Well it is all history, in back and white.

The GAO has said "If the Air Force believes that the RFP, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors."

The amendment 6 of the RFP now says :

Original :

"The aircraft shall be capable of fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3-1 (THRESHOLD, KPP #2). "

Change

"The aircraft shall be capable, as a minimum, of an offload versus radius as depicted in Figure 3-1 (THRESHOLD, KPP #2); exceed offload/radius as depicted in Figure 3-1 (OBJECTIVE, KPP #2) (The OBJECTIVE will be an amount over threshold and there is additional value to the Government for the additional fuel offload amount above THRESHOLD.)"

Original

"The aircraft should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3-1 using the above ground rules (OBJECTIVE, KPP #2)."

Change

"Reserved"

It is clear what the USAF wants, and is totally in line with what the submitted to the GAO. The GAO has given the USAF an English lesson, now the USAF has come out with an amendment that is totally consistent with what they previously said to the GAO.

The USAF has left the door open for Boeing to submit any aircraft type it sees fit, it has not placed an upper bound on the fuel offload or size, so they can field the 777/748 is they wanted to, but I think they will stick with the 767-200LFR based airframe.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 61):
In my mind the 767-400 would be the best to walk the line on cost, size, and capability (but I admit I don't know much on what the specs on the bird would be).

The problem with stretched aircraft is they tend to be geometry limited in the takeoff and landing attitude, put a boom under the tail and it gets worse. Also the 764 footprint is about 38% bigger than the 762. Range wise, the 764ER does not have a lot compared to the A332.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 41):
The GAO specifically denied this protest of the protest by the USAF. It denied the USAF and allowed the Boeing Protest.

True, all based upon one sentence in the RFP, ""[n]o consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives.". This was a technicality Boeing got the USAF on, nothing more, and it still remains in the new amendment. This was clearly an English lesson for the USAF, it did not change what they wanted.

The GAO also indicated that Boeing was informed of the USAF position, prior to and during the solicitation, and the extra fuel they had on the KC-767AT was used in the IFARA analysis. Boeing was given extra credit for the aircraft, the USAF was not inconstant in their handling of the bidders in this aspect. The GAO was not wrong in their decision, the USAF document was in error.

This is not a case of the USAF giving only NG extra credit, both parties got extra credit. Boeing's real gripe was that NG got more credit than what Boeing did, they did not complain that the USAF incorrectly gave Boeing extra credit as well (no surprise).

Again, as always, a very good post from you Zeke. The part which I quoted out of the post strikes me as typical for this whole tanker bidding process.

It is all about how the text of the bid was written and interpreted by the USAF, Boeing and NG-EADS. Both companies are eager to bring out and emphasise their strong points, and are reluctant to communicate about the weaker points of their position.

That of course is no surprise. What did surprise me is how far Boeing and some of its elected and non-elected supporters would go to twist the outcome of basically a fair procedure. I admit, the GAO rules in favour of 8 protests filed by Boeing, but denied them about 90 protests or so. But even with the 8 protests being upheld by the GAO, they never have, Boeing, and its elected and non-elected supporters, proven the superiority of their B767-AT (Frankentanker?) bid compared to the NG-EADS bid.

Deep in their heart they know that this RFP came at the wrong time for Boeing. A couple of years ago, in the time of the corrupt B767 lease deal, there was no NG-EADS counter bid. The A330-MRTT only existed on paper, but now the A330-MRTT is flying and the boom for it is also ready. That has made it at present the benchmark in the industry. It won 5 out of 5 of the last international competitions, all pitched against the B767-T. Of which the B767-AT concept is not even fully designed, and might change a bit again(!) when Boeing resubmits its bid later this year! And any theoretical improvement on paper is a risk in meeting development time-lines and is a risk because the real-life qualities of the improvements have yet to be proven! So do not expect extra points on those right away!

Now in 5 years or so, with a second production line opened, Boeing could have put forward a bid based on the B787-800 which size is almost identical to the A330-200 based KC-45. Although even now the A330 is still holding its ground very, yes even surprisingly good against the B787 and A350 competition, it is my assumption that a B787 based bid could out-qualify the NG-EADS bid based on the A330-MRTT, even if NG-EADS would take the A330-200F as their baseline aircraft. It would be a different case if NG-EADS would pitch an A350-800 "light" against a possible B787-AT, but the outcome of this hypothetical competition would depend on the content of the bid.

Based on the content of this bid the A330-MRTT based NG-EADS bid for the KC-45 was, is and will be the best plane for the USAF to require. I think the amendment of the bid shows this as well.

Question: What are the chances btw that the A330-200F will be the baseline aircraft to be put forward by NG-EADS? It is I believe again a little bit better, more modern and a bit more capable in some ways. But it is also a bit more expensive? And costs are maybe the only aspect of the bidding competition where the B767-AT based bid might just outperform the NG-EADS bid!

Kind regards.

[Edited 2008-08-10 04:20:31]
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 61):
But in a wartime situation, can you say that is true?

Sometimes. If the choice is 70 KC-30 vs 70 KC-767, that is one thing.

But 70 KC-30 vs 110 KC-767 is something quite different. The Airbus plane is more capable, but I would rather have 110 Boeings than 70 Airbuses. If the prices work out this way, this is what I am talking about.

For example, the F-22 fleet count was cut from 650 to around 180 (?) due to cost constraints. To me this has hurt the warfighting ability of the F-22 program, since we could not afford the original defense need as originally outlined in the program. I hope the tankers do not make this sacrifice, which is a real pickle... designing weapons so advanced you can't afford to use them.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:03 pm

They'll probably end up selecting the KC-45 again for these reasons:

1) More cargo carrying capacity
2) More fuel carrying capacity
3) Likely ability to use the General Electric GENx engine derivative rated at 68,000 lbs. thrust for lower fuel burn
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:28 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Only for the "net ready" electronics/capability. It is disingenuous to suggest they were inconsistent throughout the whole process, or even in the refueling aspects.

The GAO report was very specific in that they said the USAF treated the two vendors very differently. You've been trying to spin this now as a minor issue for the past 2 months. Give it a rest.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Read the USAF motion to dismiss, and the original RFP. The IFARA analysis used all the capability of the aircraft, the GAO did not have a problem with that, that is really where the extra credit came into play, the virtual fly off between the types.

So the USAF did not say they were going to give extra credit, which is what I thought. I could've sworn you had claimed in your original post they had said they would give extra credit and that it was part of the RFP.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
This is am amendment 6 to the RFP, not a re-issue. The amendment outlines the changes, it does not re-issue the whole package, just like previous amendments.

Why are you splitting hairs Zeke? Do you just like to argue and waste your time? Respectfully, that kind of behavior really borders on OCD.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:39 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
You have absolutely no idea about what the cost is.



Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
The KC-30 very likely is the better over all value.

So, how do you know the KC-30 is the better value, if no one has an idea about what the cost is?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
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.

WRONG.... The USAF trains at planned combat levels and capacities. During the Vietnam war, the largest combat fuel off-loads were given to the B-52D, which carried up to 108 Mk. 82 bombs, including 24 externally. The average fuel off-loaded was 103K-105K lbs, all from the ineffecient KC-135A/Q. The average combat fuel off-loaded during OIF and OEF is only 80K lbs, from more effeinct KC-135E/R/Ts and KC-10As. This is about the same as these tankers off-load at Red Flag Exercises.

Furthermore, in combat, you don't put all your eggs in a few baskets, (gas in tankers). The KC-135 is successful because of numbers. If one KC-135 is mission lost, or is shot down, you only loose the 80K off-load to it's mission packages, and it is easier to re-target only a few other packages to cover those targets. Fewer larger tankers, if one is mission lost or shot down, means you lost a greater number of strike packages, and complicated your problem to cover the highest priority targets/missions.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
Will people PLEASE STOP with the 777 cra.... stuff! The 777 is NOT a VIABLE option.

Why not? You and many others seem to say, the KC-30 is better than the KC-767 BECAUSE it is bigger. So, by your reasoning, a even more capable KC-777 (over the KC-30) should be even BETTER.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
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!

Then why wasn't the A-330's bigger engines over the B-767 considered to large? The USAF said nothing about engine size. BTW, contrary to what all the EADS/NG cheerleaders say here, the KC-30 cannot operate from a 7,000' runway at maximum weight, either, and the GAO said that.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm

In the operational utility area, the SSAC found that both offerors satisfied the three KPP thresholds identified in this area, and partially met the one KPP objective identified.[27] The SSAC also found that both offerors met the KSA thresholds and objectives in this area. Id. at 20. Two “major discriminators” were identified for Boeing in this area: (1) [Deleted] and (2) [Deleted]. Id. at 21. Two “major discriminators” were also identified for Northrop Grumman: (1) the KC‑30 could operate from a 7,000-foot runway carrying approximately [Deleted] percent more fuel than the KC-767,[28] and (2) the KC-30 provided a ferry range of [Deleted] nautical miles as compared to the KC-767’s ferry range of [Deleted] nautical miles.[29] Id. at 21‑22. Numerous “discriminators offering less benefit” were identified for both Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Among such discriminators identified for Boeing was the KC‑767’s smaller ground footprint, which the SSAC found would enable the KC-767 to operate from bare base airfields with confined ramp space.[30] Id. at 22. No proposal weaknesses were identified for either offeror in this area.


Ultimately, the SSAC concluded, largely based upon Northrop Grumman’s evaluated advantages in the aerial refueling and airlift areas, that Northrop Grumman’s proposal was superior to Boeing’s under the key system requirements subfactor.[31] Specifically, the SSAC noted:

While [the] KC-767 offers significant capabilities, the overall tanker/airlift mission is best supported by the KC-30. [The] KC-30 solution is superior in the core capabilities of fuel capacity/offload, airlift efficiency, and cargo/passenger/aeromedical carriage. These advantages in core capabilities outweigh the flexibility advantages of the attributes which Boeing offered (e.g. [Deleted], etc.)

Boeing got no credit for the additional flexibility of the KC-767 over the KC-30, even though EADS/NG got credit, and the GAO found the KC-767 to have greater mission flexibility.

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

No, the USAF was being dishonest here. They got caught by the GAO.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm

2. Protest is sustained, where the agency violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] KPP objectives” when it recognized as a key discriminator the fact that the awardee proposed to exceed a KPP objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than the protester.

The USAF did award "extra credit" for the KC-30 having a larger fuel capacity than the KC-767 does. It was the USAF that violated the intent of their own RFP.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
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...).

Hmmm.... Then how do you explain that since the KC-135 was developed, Boeing developed the CC-137, KC-747 (which later became a conversion for the IIAF KC-741CF as well as the developemential test airplane for the ATCA program), and KE-3, developed the conversion to tankers of numerous different B-707 to tanker conversions (for different countries), as well as the RNLAF KDC-10 aircraft. I'm not even counting the KC-10, developed by MD before Boeing bought them.

It seems Boeing has been developing tankers or tanker conversion kits for the last 50 years.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
Boeing (Dave Bowman) has already said they will stay with the 767-200LRF (AW&ST Jul 21)

Yes, but, he did not say the KC-767AT would be the only version or aircraft offered. BTW, EADS/NG has not said they would change their offer, or add the A-330-200F version to their proposal. That is also possible.

BTW, doesn't Mark McGraw have the last word to say (for Boeing) on tanker issues? Mr. McGraw is the Boeing VP of Tanker Programs.

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/f...gh06/assets/bios/Mark%20McGraw.pdf
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:47 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 59):
He's just blowing hot air and, again, conveniently forgetting the KC-30 is a medium-sized tanker.

The only definanition of small, medimum, and large tankers is what the Rand Corp. put out. None of that is binding.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 61):
The whole problem, the whole lie, and what makes Boeing redirection to the bid into "It's not fair!" so brilliant, is the fact that Boeing simply does not have a direct competitor for this bid.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 61):
The 777 simply does not meet the criteria better than the 330.

By who's definition?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Read the USAF motion to dismiss,

The USAF motion to dismiss is illrelevent.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 41):
The GAO specifically denied this protest of the protest by the USAF. It denied the USAF and allowed the Boeing Protest.

True, all based upon one sentence in the RFP, ""[n]o consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives.". This was a technicality Boeing got the USAF on, nothing more, and it still remains in the new amendment.

That is more than a technicality. It is a legal requirement.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
It is clear what the USAF wants, and is totally in line with what the submitted to the GAO.

No, it isn't. The USAF does not know what it wants. It puts out specs for the missions needed.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
The GAO has given the USAF an English lesson, now the USAF has come out with an amendment that is totally consistent with what they previously said to the GAO.

No, the GAO gave the USAF a lesson in law.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
The USAF has left the door open for Boeing to submit any aircraft type it sees fit, it has not placed an upper bound on the fuel offload or size, so they can field the 777/748 is they wanted to, but I think they will stick with the 767-200LFR based airframe.

Probibly right, but we don't really know what Boeing, or EADS/NG will do until October.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 64):
They'll probably end up selecting the KC-45 again for these reasons:

1) More cargo carrying capacity
2) More fuel carrying capacity
3) Likely ability to use the General Electric GENx engine derivative rated at 68,000 lbs. thrust for lower fuel burn

If EADS/NG submits a KC-45 powered by an engine not currently in service, the program risks go sky high. The KC-45 will be eliminated, then.
 
sxf24
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
BTW, doesn't Mark McGraw have the last word to say (for Boeing) on tanker issues? Mr. McGraw is the Boeing VP of Tanker Programs.

Bowman has replaced McGraw.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/370889_air16.html?source=mypi
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
BTW, contrary to what all the EADS/NG cheerleaders say here, the KC-30 cannot operate from a 7,000' runway at maximum weight, either, and the GAO said that.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to help me here. Where, in the text you quoted, does it say the KC-30 cannot take of at MTOW in 7,000ft?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
the GAO found the KC-767 to have greater mission flexibility.

The GAO did not make any such finding relating to the KC-767's mission flexibility. The GAO's report quotes the SSAC's conclusion, which says that the KC-30's superiority at the core tanking/airlift mission outweighs the KC-767's flexibility advantages.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
The only definanition of small, medimum, and large tankers is what the Rand Corp. put out. None of that is binding.

Rand wrote the AOA and defined the sizes. If the size is of no importance, why do Boeing and its supporters keep going on about it?  wink 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:56 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 70):
Rand wrote the AOA and defined the sizes. If the size is of no importance, why do Boeing and its supporters keep going on about it?

Because the 767 is a virtually paid for airplanes on Boeing's books, and they will make a very nice profit on the entire project - i.e. all of the tooling and R&D are paid for. Thus this is the airplane they want to put forward.

Even Boeing realizes the T7-200F is not far enough along in its development to put forward. The "risk" adjustment would kill the airplane in the review process.
 
lga1011
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 9:23 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:42 am

I think that Boeing should offer either the 767-300 or 400 instead of the 200. Maybe even the 777 would be a better choice, what do you think.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:57 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 66):
The GAO report was very specific in that they said the USAF treated the two vendors very differently. You've been trying to spin this now as a minor issue for the past 2 months. Give it a rest.

Only with respect to the "KPP No. 7 objective, Net-Ready Capability", please see the full GAO report starting at paragraph 4 on page 48.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 66):
So the USAF did not say they were going to give extra credit, which is what I thought.

See the USAF motion to dismiss. pages 13 onwards.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 66):
Why are you splitting hairs Zeke?

It is not splitting hairs. see https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/military/read.main/91295/1/#485

We have had a lot of discussion after the GAO decision on what the way forward will be, I took the position that the USAF will follow the GAO decision to the letter, others said things like "Zeke, who are you kidding? This is definitely going to be a new RFP."

This is amendment 6 to the current RFP, it is not a new RFP. This is very different to what happened in 2002.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
No, the USAF was being dishonest here. They got caught by the GAO.

Incorrect, point out where in the GAO decision they said the USAF was dishonest. No charges were filed, all very different to 2002 where Boeing and the USAF were acting illegally.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Hmmm.... Then how do you explain that since the KC-135 was developed, Boeing developed the CC-137, KC-747 (which later became a conversion for the IIAF KC-741CF as well as the developemential test airplane for the ATCA program), and KE-3, developed the conversion to tankers of numerous different B-707 to tanker conversions (for different countries), as well as the RNLAF KDC-10 aircraft. I'm not even counting the KC-10, developed by MD before Boeing bought them.

Need to look at how many 707 tankers have Israeli or Beech conversions. The CC-137 had a Beech conversion. http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/707lst_e.asp. Israel, Australia etc have the Israeli conversions. EADS has also fielded the A310-MRTT, and now the A330-MRTT/KC-30.

747 tanker was not much of an advancement, it is the KC-135 boom stuck on a 747 classic. The McDonnell Douglas KC-10A is much more advanced than anything Boeing came out with, it had the first FBW boom.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Yes, but, he did not say the KC-767AT would be the only version or aircraft offered

Did you read the article, seems clear to me that that would be the case.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
BTW, doesn't Mark McGraw have the last word to say (for Boeing) on tanker issues? Mr. McGraw is the Boeing VP of Tanker Programs.

McGraw got replaced.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
That is more than a technicality. It is a legal requirement.

It was a technicality, and they were also inconsistent. The GAO disallowed the extra credit for KPP 2, but allowed it for the IFARA analysis.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
The USAF does not know what it wants. It puts out specs for the missions needed.

You just contradicted yourself.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):

No, the GAO gave the USAF a lesson in law.

Did they ? Could have fooled me, remember Baroque did a Flesch-Kinkaid grading of it and came up with a level of 32.2
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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:59 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 65):
But 70 KC-30 vs 110 KC-767 is something quite different.

Bingo! I could care less if NG/Airbus got the contract AS LONG AS they were the low cost bidder. The AF elite can't bring themselves to acknowledge that the US has some financial problems and long term deficit problems. If they did pay attention to the long term problems we face they would be taking the position of buying the least expensive option that can do the job. Let's just hope that the contract is written to where the AF isn't penalized if only 50 KC-X's get built

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
Incorrect, point out where in the GAO decision they said the USAF was dishonest. No charges were filed, all very different to 2002 where Boeing and the USAF were acting illegally.

Some things take time Zeke. A few hearings in Congress where some bright aids pick up a problem or two, DOJ being brought in to investigate fully. Depending on who is in office next January there might be problems that are swept under the rug, or taken to a grand jury.

When you say that no charges have been filed you need to add the word "yet'.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:02 pm



Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 69):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
BTW, doesn't Mark McGraw have the last word to say (for Boeing) on tanker issues? Mr. McGraw is the Boeing VP of Tanker Programs.

Bowman has replaced McGraw.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...=mypi

Thanks, I missed that, and shouldn't have.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Two “major discriminators” were also identified for Northrop Grumman: (1) the KC‑30 could operate from a 7,000-foot runway carrying approximately [Deleted] percent more fuel than the KC-767,[28] and (2) the KC-30 provided a ferry range of [Deleted] nautical miles as compared to the KC-767’s ferry range of [Deleted] nautical miles.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 70):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
BTW, contrary to what all the EADS/NG cheerleaders say here, the KC-30 cannot operate from a 7,000' runway at maximum weight, either, and the GAO said that.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to help me here. Where, in the text you quoted, does it say the KC-30 cannot take of at MTOW in 7,000ft?

Because the GAO report said the KC-30 can operate from a 7000' runway with XX% more fuel than the KC-767 can. It did not say the KC-30 could operate from that 7000' runway at MTOW.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 70):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
the GAO found the KC-767 to have greater mission flexibility.

The GAO did not make any such finding relating to the KC-767's mission flexibility. The GAO's report quotes the SSAC's conclusion, which says that the KC-30's superiority at the core tanking/airlift mission outweighs the KC-767's flexibility advantages.

Here is what the GAO report said:

"In the aerial refueling area, the SSAC noted “major discriminators” in favor of Boeing under several KPP No. 1 objectives, including its capability to [Deleted] and [Deleted], and for a “noteworthy non‑KPP/KSA capability to [Deleted]. Id. at 13.


The SSAC also noted a number of “major discriminators” in favor of Northrop Grumman in the aerial refueling area, including one under the KPP No. 2 objective for Northrop Grumman’s proposal to exceed the RFP’s fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range (Boeing’s aircraft was also evaluated as exceeding this KPP objective but to a lesser degree),[22] and for a number of non-KPP/KSA requirements, including the proposal of a better aerial refueling efficiency (more pounds of fuel offload per pound of fuel used) than Boeing’s; a “boom envelope” that was [Deleted] times greater than that defined by the Allied Technical Publication (ATP)-56[23] (Boeing proposed a boom envelope that was [Deleted] times greater than that defined by the publication); and a higher offload and receive fuel rate than Boeing. Id. at 13-14.


In the aerial refueling area, the SSAC also identified five “discriminators offering less benefit” for Boeing that were assessed under 14 different SRD requirements and one such discriminator for Northrop Grumman that was assessed under 2 SRD requirements. Id. at 15-16.


The SSAC found that Boeing’s proposal had no weaknesses in the aerial refueling area, but identified the following two weaknesses in Northrop Grumman’s proposal:

The first weakness is related to the specified lighting around the fuel receptacle of the KC-30. The specified lighting for refueling as a receiver may provide [Deleted]. The second weakness is related to Northrop Grumman’s boom approach. The [Deleted]."

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 71):
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 70):
Rand wrote the AOA and defined the sizes. If the size is of no importance, why do Boeing and its supporters keep going on about it?

Because the 767 is a virtually paid for airplanes on Boeing's books, and they will make a very nice profit on the entire project - i.e. all of the tooling and R&D are paid for. Thus this is the airplane they want to put forward.

So, why doesn't this also apply to the A-330?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
This is amendment 6 to the current RFP, it is not a new RFP. This is very different to what happened in 2002.

Correct.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
No, the USAF was being dishonest here. They got caught by the GAO.

Incorrect, point out where in the GAO decision they said the USAF was dishonest. No charges were filed, all very different to 2002 where Boeing and the USAF were acting illegally.

There is a current FBI investigation looking at this current KC-X competition. You are correct, no charges have been filed, but that is not saying charges could, or could not be filed in the near future.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Hmmm.... Then how do you explain that since the KC-135 was developed, Boeing developed the CC-137, KC-747 (which later became a conversion for the IIAF KC-741CF as well as the developemential test airplane for the ATCA program), and KE-3, developed the conversion to tankers of numerous different B-707 to tanker conversions (for different countries), as well as the RNLAF KDC-10 aircraft. I'm not even counting the KC-10, developed by MD before Boeing bought them.

Need to look at how many 707 tankers have Israeli or Beech conversions. The CC-137 had a Beech conversion. http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/707lst_e.asp. Israel, Australia etc have the Israeli conversions. EADS has also fielded the A310-MRTT, and now the A330-MRTT/KC-30.

True, but Boeing did the B-707, KC-707, KC-137 conversions for Chile, Brazil, Italy, Spain and others. Additionally, the reueling kits installed by Beech and Israeli Aircraft into other B-707s are a Boeing developed kit. Boeing has also developed 3 different versions of the KC-767, (KC-767A/J/AT), two of which are flying (KC-767A/J), and one in operational service now, the KC-767J.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
747 tanker was not much of an advancement, it is the KC-135 boom stuck on a 747 classic. The McDonnell Douglas KC-10A is much more advanced than anything Boeing came out with, it had the first FBW boom.

Partially true. In the ATCA program (B-747 vs. DC-10 tankers), Boeing was offering the USAF a Gen. IV Boom, not the Gen. III Boom (KC-135 Boom) that was installed on the test B-747-100, or installed on the IIAF KC-747-100CF Iran bought used from TWA. The B-747 tanker offered to the USAF would have been a base B-747-200F with a new Boom, under cargo deck body fuel tanks, and carrying at least 460,000lbs of fuel (about 100,000lbs more than the KC-10A carries).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 73):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
The USAF does not know what it wants. It puts out specs for the missions needed.

You just contradicted yourself.

My fault. I really screwed up wording that. What I should have written was the USAF does not know which airplane they want when they have a competition like the KC-X. They do write the specs. for the missions they plan to fly with the new airplane. It is up to the OEMs to come up with a design/airplane that meets those requirements. When the KC-X program (v. 5) began, the USAF did not know if they wanted the KC-30 or the KC-767 until they began receiving information from the OEMs. Or at least, that is the way it suppose to work.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:38 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
When you say that no charges have been filed you need to add the word "yet'.

I doubt there will be against members of the USAF or the contracting office, a lot of peer review was used in the process after the 2002 debacle. With members of other services and GAO being involved during the process. Sandra Palmatier and Sue Payton seemed to have covered their six rather well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Because the GAO report said the KC-30 can operate from a 7000' runway with XX% more fuel than the KC-767 can. It did not say the KC-30 could operate from that 7000' runway at MTOW.

Correct, neither did it say it could not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
There is a current FBI investigation looking at this current KC-X competition. You are correct, no charges have been filed, but that is not saying charges could, or could not be filed in the near future.

See above.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
in operational service now, the KC-767J.

I keep hearing that the KC-767J is not operational, as it is yet to pass the JSDAF acceptance testing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Boeing was offering the USAF a Gen. IV Boom

Still nothing more than a concept, like the KC-767AT.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Additionally, the reueling kits installed by Beech and Israeli Aircraft into other B-707s are a Boeing developed kit.

The Israeli stuff was all done by IAF in house, just like their current development of the G550 based tanker. IAF do a lot of mods in house, the have their own freighter conversion kits as well for most popular freighters on the market, including the 747. The RAAF 707 conversion were an Israeli conversion, nothing to do with Boeing.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:36 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
It did not say the KC-30 could operate from that 7000' runway at MTOW.

It doesn't say it can, and it doesn't say it can't. You're reading the same words I am, just reaching the conclusion you want. The GAO report simply says the KC-30 can take off in 7,000ft with [deleted]% more fuel than the KC-767. I'd suggest no conclusion can be drawn one way or the other as to how close the KC-30 is to MTOW.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Here is what the GAO report said:

None of the quoted text that follows your comment is a GAO "finding", it's just the GAO's summary of the process that had taken place. The GAO makes no technical evaluation of either bid (they're accountants and lawyers), so I'm unclear where this claim comes from:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
the GAO found the KC-767 to have greater mission flexibility

It's rather like me claiming the GAO said the KC-30 is the superior tanker, because these words appear in their report:

Quote:
[The] KC-30 solution is superior in the core capabilities of fuel capacity/offload, airlift efficiency, and cargo/passenger/aeromedical carriage. These advantages in core capabilities outweigh the flexibility advantages of the attributes which Boeing offered

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

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:38 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
So, why doesn't this also apply to the A-330?

It does, but the question that was being answered was why is Boeing so focused on the 767.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:44 pm

It looks as though Boeing may be about to stop playing and take their ball home with them!

KC-X" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Toward%20Not%20Re-bidding%20KC-X

Quote:
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).

Mostly just a rehash of the same item, but some additional info:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26138109

Quote:
Boeing's Dan Beck says he can't comment one way or the other on the Aviation Week story. He says Boeing has submitted its response to the Pentagon's request, and will be meeting with defense officials tomorrow to "voice our opinions" about the new proposal.

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
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:46 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
When you say that no charges have been filed you need to add the word "yet'.

I doubt there will be against members of the USAF or the contracting office, a lot of peer review was used in the process after the 2002 debacle. With members of other services and GAO being involved during the process. Sandra Palmatier and Sue Payton seemed to have covered their six rather well.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
There is a current FBI investigation looking at this current KC-X competition. You are correct, no charges have been filed, but that is not saying charges could, or could not be filed in the near future.

See above.

I prefer to wait until the FBI investigation is completed. I do not know if the AF-OSI is also involved, investigating any military memebers.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
in operational service now, the KC-767J.


I keep hearing that the KC-767J is not operational, as it is yet to pass the JSDAF acceptance testing.

No, the KC-767J has been operational since June. The first new tanker was delivered in Feb. and the second about a month later, in Mar. 2008. The JSDAF completed their acceptance of the first airplane in May, and the second on in June, about six weeks later. The additional time was due to damage to the second airplane during a cargo loading incident. That damage has since been repaired.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
Additionally, the reueling kits installed by Beech and Israeli Aircraft into other B-707s are a Boeing developed kit.

The Israeli stuff was all done by IAF in house, just like their current development of the G550 based tanker. IAF do a lot of mods in house, the have their own freighter conversion kits as well for most popular freighters on the market, including the 747. The RAAF 707 conversion were an Israeli conversion, nothing to do with Boeing.

Yes, IAF did the installation work (which they began in the 1970s), but they used a Boeing developed kit. In the 1970s, IAF was not as good an airplane modification company as they are now. IAF has never designed or built an Air Refueling Boom. They were still relitively new at it. Today, they have the ability to design and build their own modification kits, for a wide verity of missions, from tankers, to recee.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:02 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 82):
It looks as though Boeing may be about to stop playing and take their ball home with them!

KC-X" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Toward%20Not%20Re-bidding%20KC-X

Quote:
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).

My friend Hoyle said to ask if anybody knows if Boeing play a weak pass and a strong no bid? If the former, will all this count as water under the bridge?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23694
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:11 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 82):
It looks as though Boeing may be about to stop playing and take their ball home with them!

This is entirely predictable. In fact, here's what I wrote on the last tanker thread (https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/92892):

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63):
If the original RFP was set up this way ("extra credit" for bigger planes, not factoring in the cost of new hangars and runways or fuel use, etc), I think it would have been Boeing who would not have bothered to submit an entry.

Somehow I think this is all going to get a lot more ugly if Undersecretary Young proceeds along the lines discussed in the Seattle Times article above. I think he'll need both his helmet and his body armor too!

As mentioned much earlier, the reissued RFP can be written to preselect either of the two products. It seems it will be written to preselect the NG product, and this will raise holy hell in Congress. The usual outcome of this is that the Boeing side will be tossed a bone of some sort, i.e. somehow funding will appear for some sort of Boeing product that the USAF isn't asking for. That way the folks in WA and the folks in AL will both get what they want.

Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:47 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):
I prefer to wait until the FBI investigation is completed. I do not know if the AF-OSI is also involved, investigating any military memebers.

I understand that the DoD-IG is looking into USAF procurement irregularities in the CSAR-X, C-17 and KC-X programs. Is the FBI a part of this or are they doing something separate? Also, I wonder how they can hold another competition when Boeing's involvement is a part of some of those investigations?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4919
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:00 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 78):
There is a current FBI investigation looking at this current KC-X competition. You are correct, no charges have been filed, but that is not saying charges could, or could not be filed in the near future.

Can you please point to some documentary support for this statement, I've been looking for a few hours now and I can't find any suggestions that there is an FBI investigation into this specific and current KC-X competition, the GAO rulings or the bids.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:04 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 86):
I understand that the DoD-IG is looking into USAF procurement irregularities in the CSAR-X, C-17 and KC-X programs. Is the FBI a part of this or are they doing something separate? Also, I wonder how they can hold another competition when Boeing's involvement is a part of some of those investigations?

The IG is looking at possible violations of DOD policies. The FBI (and if involved the OSI) is looking into the possibility of criminal activity, or breaking of laws.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:24 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 88):
The IG is looking at possible violations of DOD policies. The FBI (and if involved the OSI) is looking into the possibility of criminal activity, or breaking of laws.

Interesting. At the last hearing, a specific question about criminal activity was asked, and the GAO said they found no evidence of such. This would lead one to believe that parties in Congress are choosing to ignore the GAO and to listen to someone else for whatever reason.

Boeing feels NG gained by saying they were pulling out on the last go round, so now it is their turn. The table is being set for another round of protests.

This process needs some serious adult supervision and reasoning. However, you have to remember the same group is ignoring the nationwide call to open up offshore drilling (and no it would not take 10 years for the first oil to reach production - go to Santa Barbara, CA and look offshore. Those platforms are ready to go.)
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:25 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 47):

Maximum take-off distance and fuel offload. I do not have the entire list.

A.net myth. Keep repeating it does not make it true. The fact is that B77F has a very similar take off field length performance compared to A332, according to FAA certification. IIRC at MTOW the take off performance is within 500ft of each other.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:34 pm

The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) a part of the DoD-IG comes to mind as also playing a role here.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:49 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 89):
Interesting. At the last hearing, a specific question about criminal activity was asked, and the GAO said they found no evidence of such. This would lead one to believe that parties in Congress are choosing to ignore the GAO and to listen to someone else for whatever reason.

I was also surprised by that statement but then an associate told me they (GAO) specifically said there was no evidence of "bribery". I have also been told the "protests" group from the GAO do not do investigations for possible criminal violations etc.

I suspect the GAO wants to stay out of any possible criminal investigations from this mess.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:53 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 87):
A.net myth. Keep repeating it does not make it true. The fact is that B77F has a very similar take off field length performance compared to A332, according to FAA certification. IIRC at MTOW the take off performance is within 500ft of each other.

I wasn't aware that the 777F had been certified. The first one just flew a month or so ago - it must have been on the fast track.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23694
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:13 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 86):
Boeing feels NG gained by saying they were pulling out on the last go round, so now it is their turn. The table is being set for another round of protests.

I'm not quite following this. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing pulled out: if they feel it's clear the USAF wants the KC-30, why should they waste the money going forward? But if they do pull out, how would they have grounds to protest?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:24 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 90):
I wasn't aware that the 777F had been certified.

It hasn't. Certification is scheduled for 4th quarter, with two planes involved in the test program of 270 flight hours and over 450 ground test hours.
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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:15 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
I'm not quite following this. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing pulled out: if they feel it's clear the USAF wants the KC-30, why should they waste the money going forward? But if they do pull out, how would they have grounds to protest?

Boeing's Congressional mouthpieces will ensure that Boeing stays in the competition even if it means another RFP "adjustment".
 
bennett123
Posts: 9467
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:22 pm

Given that it seems that no decision will be made before the elections, why no shelve the whole project and come back next year  Smile
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:24 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 90):
I wasn't aware that the 777F had been certified. The first one just flew a month or so ago - it must have been on the fast track.

Sorry I meant 772LR, which is technically the same as 777F, from take off performance point of view.

Regardless it does not change the fact that the FAA take off perfomances at sea level standard condition between 772LR and A332 are really similar to each other.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:27 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 92):
Boeing's Congressional mouthpieces will ensure that Boeing stays in the competition even if it means another RFP "adjustment".

I agree - this is not just about Boeing - but union votes and national pride.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 94):
Given that it seems that no decision will be made before the elections, why no shelve the whole project and come back next year

My hunch is something like that will happen.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18948
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:15 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
I'm not quite following this. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing pulled out: if they feel it's clear the USAF wants the KC-30, why should they waste the money going forward? But if they do pull out, how would they have grounds to protest?

The plan would be to not bid in the expectation that congress forces the UASF to draft a completely new RFP. Since congress decreed there must be a competition, one assumes they wouldn't subsequently allow the AF to single-source, especially not a "stinking French tanker!"

However, no-bidding could be high-risk strategy for Boeing.
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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 96):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 94):
Given that it seems that no decision will be made before the elections, why no shelve the whole project and come back next year

My hunch is something like that will happen.

I would doubt if the election will provide either side with enough votes to change the current positions (including that magnificent 9% approval rating). Neither Presidential candidate is going to do anything to alienate the Southern states (which not providing jobs in Mobile will do), so I suspect when Congress comes back from their summer vacations, there is going to be a great deal of time spent trying to find a compromise that will save face all the way around.

What would not surprise me is a split order for the medium tanker plus the first award of the large tanker (777 or 747-8). The spin will be everything is being used up so the initial order will be something like 80 767's; 80 A330's; and 40 747-8'Fs. By the time to order more medium medium airplanes rolls around we should have a fairly good handle on which is the better airplane.

Money is never an issue for these guys because it isn't theirs. Saving face and keeping/gaining votes is what they are all about.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:33 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
I'm not quite following this. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing pulled out: if they feel it's clear the USAF wants the KC-30, why should they waste the money going forward? But if they do pull out, how would they have grounds to protest?

It might be that Boeing pulls an "NG/Airbus" and advises the AF that they will not submit a bid on an RFP that is specifically designed to give the order to NG/Airbus.

The AF found that they were very capable of modifying the RFP in order to have competition when NG/Airbus made the threat. They would have a difficult time justifying NOT changing the RFP again if Boeing is ready to walk. - and I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is truly ready to walk on the adjustments to the RFP.

It must be noted, however, that with McCain's connections to NG the AF might feel fairly comfortable telling Boeing to ensure the doorknob doesn't hit them in the bum on the way out.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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