Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:36 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 197):
I have not been able to find a reliable sourse for the development costs of either the KC-30A or KC-767AT

I didn't ask for development cost at all.

I asked about the acquisition cost as you can see:

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 192):
Isn't the 787 ruled out due to acquisition cost anyway?

And my question with that remains unanswered so far.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 192):
If people argument, that with a more booms in the air strategy the 767 tanker is a must, due to the lower cost of acquisition compared to the 330 tanker, than the 787 must surely be way off, no? It is not exactly cheap in the first place, not even considered any delay in introducion a second production line and doing the research for the tanker conversion.



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 194):
Looking for as many aircraft in the fleet for a certain funding (haven't a lot people stressed the 110x767AT vs. 70x330) the 787 is countering exactly that fact. There can be no doubt about it.
So hopefully no 787 chearleading is done by people also praising the "as many booms in the air as possible strategy"

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
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:37 pm

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 199):

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 198):
Where did the GAO agree that the KC-767 was "the right size"?

where did they say the KC-30 was?

The GAO is not the Government Body to rule on size of tanker aircraft! The GAO checks if all procedures of a specific bidding procedure were followed correctly when it comes to government agencies awarding big contracts and one or more of the competing parties is filing a protest!

The issue was that Boeing never came up with any proof that the USAF told them that the B767-AT was the right size. Also Boeing did not came up with any evidence that the USAF told Boeing not to bid with a proposed Boeing 777-Tanker aircraft.

The GAO never ruled on that issue because there was no evidence presented by Boeing in their long protest list (of which the large majority was turned down by the GAO) that the USAF had done all the things Boeing had accused the USAF to have done! Accusing a potential customer remains unwise in my opinion btw. With that fact that the GAO did not rule on this issue, I trust that the "We were lead to believe....blah, blah" was and is just a shameless lie to swing public opinion towards Boeing and against the USAF!

[Edited 2008-08-18 13:43:05]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
Which objectives, that the KC-X is intended to fly, have not been thought of by the USAF that Airbus had to "educate" them on?

Post cold war stuff, when you have fewer multi role aircraft doing more. The USAF did not know what the IFARA would come up with until they ran the simulations.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 197):

I have not been able to find a reliable sourse for the development costs of either the KC-30A or KC-767AT. Zeke, do you have a sourse I can look at?

Over my lifetime I have found HP and Tabasco the most reliable sources, either goes well with a good English breakfast  Wink

From the GAO report

"The Air Force calculated a MPLCC for Boeing of $108.044 billion and a MPLCC for Northrop Grumman of $108.010 billion.

In comparing the firms%u2019 evaluated costs, the SSAC noted that Northrop Grumman had a lower evaluated MPLCC, but that the firms%u2019 evaluated MPLCCs were within $34 million of each other (approximately a .03-percent difference). The SSAC noted, however, that Boeing%u2019s slightly higher evaluated MPLCC was %u201Cdriven%u201D primarily by the firm%u2019s much higher SDD costs, %u201Cwhich reflected Boeing%u2019s more complex design, development, and integration activities.%u201D AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 43. In addition, the SSAC accepted the SSET%u2019s evaluation that Boeing%u2019s proposal presented a moderate cost risk for SDD. Northrop Grumman%u2019s proposal was assessed as a low cost risk for SDD costs. The SSAC viewed this difference in cost risk for the SDD phase to be the discriminator under this factor. Id. at 44."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 197):
That may work for 3 or more engine airplanes (tankers, bombers, cargo, reccee, AWACS, etc), but it doesn't work for one and two engine fighters, which is the bulk on the total number of airplanes moved. For fighters, on any long over water movement, they must be kept at or above BINGO fuel at all times. For those that don't know what BINGO is, it is the unrefueled range to a suitable divert base, taking planned or known winds (which ever is worse) into consideration. I do know that Zeke understands this. For many fighter types, this is always very close to full tanks. So, refueling is every 15-20 minutes. For a fighter drag, each tanker will have anywhere from 4-6 receivers, it must keep at or above BINGO. It will not be unusual to have 3-6 tankers each dragging up to 6 receivers. So you could have as many as 36 airplanes in one ALTRAV, each ALTRAV spaced about 1 hour apart.

This is another area where the KC-30 was found advantageous, it is more optimum to formate 1-2 more aircraft behind a KC-30 tanker depending on the type of formation/deployment/route.

The Sea-PI said it very nicely this week

"The Air Force knows a tanker accomplishes nothing by flying from Point A to Point B, so what really matters is the ratio of delivery. How many gallons will the plane deliver for every gallon it burns? That's a tougher problem, but it's hardly trigonometry. Northrop showed the Air Force it can deliver almost two pounds for every pound it burns, while Boeing delivers only 1.6 pounds. That's a 22 percent edge for Northrop, and the numbers hold up, regardless of the trip length.

The "aircraft fuel efficiency" ratio works out solidly in Northrop's favor, so why must the military retake the quiz? The Government Accountability Office faulted the Air Force's process, not the substance of the calculations. Overachievers on "refueling offload" or "aircraft fuel efficiency" were not supposed to get extra credit, but the initial Air Force decision emphasized Northrop's ability to carry more fuel, more efficiently.

Now it's up to the Pentagon to distinguish more from less, and to "show its work" to the satisfaction of the fussiest teacher. More fuel en route to the battle front is undeniably better than less. More fuel delivered for each gallon consumed to deliver it is more efficient, not less."

from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/375048_tanker15.html

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 199):

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 198):
Where did the GAO agree that the KC-767 was "the right size"?

where did they say the KC-30 was?

The GAO actually ruled that the KC-767 was not the right size, and forced the USAF to consider other options, that opened the door for the KC-30. Boeing cannot protest to the GAO for the USAF considering other aircraft, when it was the GAO who told the USAF to consider them. This decision is a matter of public record, Boeing should be well aware of it.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07367r.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:14 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 201):
The issue was that Boeing never came up with any proof that the USAF told them that the B767-AT was the right size. Also Boeing did not came up with any evidence that the USAF told Boeing not to bid with a proposed Boeing 777-Tanker aircraft.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 198):
If Boeing had any proof of the claim they were told not to bid the KC-777 and only to bid the KC-767, they would have produced it. They haven't.

See reply No. 43 & 48 for some answers to this. Boeing won't come up with any proof because it would incriminate them in receiving non-public information. Their supporters in Congress have said who it was but I think that is only the tip of the iceberg.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:17 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 203):
Boeing won't come up with any proof because it would incriminate them in receiving non-public information

And then again, why put any trust in those information if you can't enforce their legality? And why not stick to the legal path so stressed by Boeing now in the moment the "insider" gave the illegal information?

Lets face it: They got illegal insider info and thought they could make the most benefit for themselves. Rather egocentric, no? And now they are whining about an unfair process.

What a mockery.

Edit: What I should add: I don't believe EADS/Northrop Grumman or for gods sake Airbus is any better. They will all do what is necessary, legal and on the edge of it, to win a 35 billion $ contract.
Still, why then whine about an unfortunate outcome?

[Edited 2008-08-19 00:20:41]
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
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:31 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 203):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 201):
The issue was that Boeing never came up with any proof that the USAF told them that the B767-AT was the right size. Also Boeing did not came up with any evidence that the USAF told Boeing not to bid with a proposed Boeing 777-Tanker aircraft.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 198):
If Boeing had any proof of the claim they were told not to bid the KC-777 and only to bid the KC-767, they would have produced it. They haven't.

See reply No. 43 & 48 for some answers to this. Boeing won't come up with any proof because it would incriminate them in receiving non-public information. Their supporters in Congress have said who it was but I think that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks TropicBird for referring to these posts. There are so many posts nowadays to read that I must admit that I missed them initially!

Kind regards.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11181
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:49 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 202):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
Which objectives, that the KC-X is intended to fly, have not been thought of by the USAF that Airbus had to "educate" them on?

Post cold war stuff, when you have fewer multi role aircraft doing more.

Unfortunetly that (Post Cold War) is only one consideration. The political world constantly evolves (sometimes regresses), and that is what drives military planners. You can count on the US Military having several planned options considering a wide range of political instability for the future. Fewer assets, no matter how technoligically advanced they are is not always the best answer. WWII Germany found that out the hard way. They had the most advanced weapons of anyone during WWII, but got pounded by the Allies by some advanced technoligy, but mostly by shear numbers. Two great examples of this are the P-51s vs. the Me-262 and the Sherman Tanks vs. the Tiger Tank.

But, either way, both the KC-30 and the KC-767 are considered as multi-role aircraft.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 202):
From the GAO report

"The Air Force calculated a MPLCC for Boeing of $108.044 billion and a MPLCC for Northrop Grumman of $108.010 billion.

In comparing the firms%u2019 evaluated costs, the SSAC noted that Northrop Grumman had a lower evaluated MPLCC, but that the firms%u2019 evaluated MPLCCs were within $34 million of each other (approximately a .03-percent difference). The SSAC noted, however, that Boeing%u2019s slightly higher evaluated MPLCC was %u201Cdriven%u201D primarily by the firm%u2019s much higher SDD costs, %u201Cwhich reflected Boeing%u2019s more complex design, development, and integration activities.%u201D AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 43. In addition, the SSAC accepted the SSET%u2019s evaluation that Boeing%u2019s proposal presented a moderate cost risk for SDD. Northrop Grumman%u2019s proposal was assessed as a low cost risk for SDD costs. The SSAC viewed this difference in cost risk for the SDD phase to be the discriminator under this factor. Id. at 44."

But, the USAF later (after Boeing filed a protest with the GAO) "revised" their most probible life cycle costs for the KC-767, lowering it significantly. The original MPLCC for the KC-767 of $108.044B, IIRC was revised down to $108.006, slightly below the MPLCC of the KC-30. But, this is not a significant difference, and shows how tightly each aircraft compares to one another. What the MPLCC does not include is the cost of fuel, as on tankers, you can predicte flying hours, but not offloads, which will dictate the fuel load per mission. It is here the KC-767 has an advantage (because of size and lighter weight), burning between $25B and $40B over 40 years. Nor does the MPLCC take into consideration the USAF will need to buy ground cargo loading equipment to load/unload the lower cargo decks on the KC-30, as no USAF aircraft (except VIP aircraft) use the lower cargo decks. In both the KC-135 and KC-10 there are fuel cell bladders that make up the body tanks there.

The GAO also said:
"SSAC’s Mission Capability Factor Evaluation


Northrop Grumman’s evaluated advantage under the mission capability factor was largely based upon the firm’s perceived superiority under the key system requirements and program management subfactors; the two firms were found essentially equal under the remaining three subfactors. Id. at 46-47."

The key word being "perceived".

The report also says:
"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].
Id. at 16. The concern that Northrop Grumman’s [Deleted] was assessed under a KPP No. 1 threshold; the other weaknesses were assessed under non-KPP/KSA requirements. No schedule or cost risk was assigned by the SSET or SSAC for either of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated weaknesses. See AR, Tab 46, SSET Final Briefing to SSAC and SSA, at 196, 198; Tab 55, PAR, at 16.

So, there is a question, in the mind of the GAO, as to why the SSET or SSAC did not consider the two EADS/NG air refueling weakness a cost (read development) or scheduling risk.

In the airlift area, the GAO says there is only one KPP, and both offers were found to meet all the threshold requirements:
"In the airlift area, the SSAC found that both offerors met all threshold requirements for the airlift KPP (there was only one KPP in this area), and that both offerors exceeded the threshold requirement for efficiently transporting equipment and personnel. AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 16. There were no KPP objectives identified by the SRD in the airlift area.


This is the part I find most disturbing, as it says the USAF actually did play favoritsim here.

"We did not, and do not now, agree with the Air Force and Northrop Grumman that Boeing’s protest is a challenge to the ground rules established by the RFP for this procurement. We find that Boeing, rather than objecting to any of the RFP’s requirements or evaluation criteria, is instead protesting that the Air Force failed to reasonably evaluate proposals in accordance with the RFP’s identified requirements and evaluation criteria.[40] We also do not agree with the agency and intervenor that, because Boeing was informed during the competition of the agency’s view of the merits of its proposal and/or how the proposals were being evaluated, Boeing was required to protest the agency’s evaluation or evaluation methodology prior to award and to the protester’s receipt of its required debriefing. Even where the protester is apprised of agency evaluation judgments with which it disagrees or where it believes the evaluation is inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, our Bid Protest Regulations require that these protest grounds be filed after the receipt of the required debriefing.[41] See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2); see also 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39040 (July 26, 1996) (“to address concerns regarding strategic or defensive protests, and to encourage early and meaningful debriefings,” a protester shall not file an initial protest prior to its required debriefing); Rhonda Podojil--Agency Tender Official, B‑311310, May 9, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 94 at 3 (application of debriefing exception to A‑76 competitions conducted on the basis of competitive proposals).

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

Quoting Zeke (Reply 202):
Now it's up to the Pentagon to distinguish more from less, and to "show its work" to the satisfaction of the fussiest teacher. More fuel en route to the battle front is undeniably better than less. More fuel delivered for each gallon consumed to deliver it is more efficient, not less."

from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio....html

Nice piece written by someone who has no idea what they are talking about, (usually a reporter, but in this case it is even worse, Jerry Cox is a former US Senate Staffer, in other words, a politician).

As I have mentioned there is something called "Boom Saturation", and it would also apply to recievers reciving fuel from WARPs. that is the point where the first receiver that refueled has less fuel, than when he started, because someone else is on the Boom. That ratio remains constant at 6:1 receivers per tanker. That ration does not change with the tanker type, whether it is a KC-135, KC-10, KC-30 or KC-767.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:07 pm

It looks like the final RFP will be delayed until next week.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/146635.asp

Quote:
Although the Pentagon was expected to issue its final tanker request for proposals this week, a spokesman now says it is more likely to be next week.

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: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:11 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 206):
What the MPLCC does not include is the cost of fuel, as on tankers, you can predicte flying hours, but not offloads, which will dictate the fuel load per mission. It is here the KC-767 has an advantage (because of size and lighter weight), burning between $25B and $40B over 40 years. Nor does the MPLCC take into consideration the USAF will need to buy ground cargo loading equipment to load/unload the lower cargo decks on the KC-30, as no USAF aircraft (except VIP aircraft) use the lower cargo decks. In both the KC-135 and KC-10 there are fuel cell bladders that make up the body tanks there.

That is not correct, the MPLCC did take into account the fuel as part of the operation and support numbers in MPLCC, from the GAO decision, my underline.

Quote:
RFP sect. L.6.4.7. The basis of estimate was required to include a “narrative with supporting data explaining how the proposed cost estimates (SDD, [production and deployment], O&S) were created.” RFP sect. L.6.2. With respect to proposed O&S costs, which include fuel costs, offerors were informed that they should assume a 25‑year system life from the date each aircraft is delivered and “calculate their O&S costs for 2 years beyond the date of their final production delivery”; to support their O&S cost projections, offerors were required to provide all “assumptions, ground rules, methodology, and supporting data.”[14] RFP sections L.6.1.1.13, L.6.4.9. In this regard, the offerors were informed that if the historical data did not support the proposed prices, the cost documentation would be considered adequate only if the agency could understand the technical content, estimating methodology, and the “build-up” of the offerors’ costs. RFP sect. L.6.4.7.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:27 am

Well, it looks like Boeing is going to play hard ball in order to buy time to work up somthing other than the -200AT:

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080821/BLOG01/59405156/-1/RSS08

I guess they were told on Saturday that the basic RFP was not going to be changed.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:47 am

Wow - protest the bid and then don't bid when your protest was upheld, how the hell does that work? Boeing needs to come to grips with the reality that they don't deserve to win either KC-X or CSAR-X unless their willing to ante up with their latest in technologies.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:03 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 209):
Well, it looks like Boeing is going to play hard ball in order to buy time to work up somthing other than the -200AT:

I think it would be pretty dumb on Boeing's part to put forth all those resources and money to rebid an airplane that the USAF obviously does not want. They need to either put up a different airframe that stands a good chance of winning the contract, and try to get more time to do so, or simply walk away. It is as simple as that from a corporate perspective. Now, that may screw up the bid process for the USAF, but that is not Boeing's concern.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 210):
Boeing needs to come to grips with the reality that they don't deserve to win either KC-X or CSAR-X unless their willing to ante up with their latest in technologies.

I think that is what they are trying to do if they're actually bidding for more time.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:12 am



Quoting Redflyer (Reply 211):
I think that is what they are trying to do if they're actually bidding for more time.

Which is a bit late, surely. The mockery goes on...stronger an stronger.
They had years of time they rather wasted with arrogance instead of developing a truly winning platform.
Their protest is upheld, fair enough and right so, as rules of US law were broken. Now they don't want to bid? Oh dear...in a normal world, the whole process would be a first class embarrasment.
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
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:50 am

Quoting Redflyer (Reply 211):
I think that is what they are trying to do if they're actually bidding for more time.

Yes. As usual, Boeing is in the driver's seat. Until such time as USAF can satisfy some of Boeing's needs, Boeing will place a call and USAF can scurry over and pick up their instructions.

Boeing is so strong the earth practically shook when they lost the award. To be deprived of the right to exhaust all possible bids, is clearly well outside of the USAF's powers and authorities. Boeing has the power to delay this process as long as it deems necessary. If the USAF disagrees, they will be replaced with people who do play ball. JMO

I'm not saying Boeing will win. But I am saying Boeing has the power to collect every opportunity, extend every deadline. In a battle of political wills, the USAF is strong (near holy) but Boeing is yet stronger. Airbus is something off in the mist.

[Edited 2008-08-22 00:54:32]

[Edited 2008-08-22 01:06:14]
 
knoxibus
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:55 pm

Surely the complaints upheld by the GAO on the previous RFP were not that numerous and enough to make radical changes to the bid and to the aircraft so that a new bird must be designed.

They are now realising they proposed the wrong aircraft...  Yeah sure

In brief, this tells us that Boeing did not read it properly enough at first hand, and this implies also that dialogue between Boeing and the USAF was not sufficient enough or clear enough (not saying Boeing did not want to listen, I also blame the USAF for not being on equal terms between the two offerors).

I believe the latter was noted by the GAO anyway. Such a shame though, one would think that such a contract be thorough and cristal clear.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:53 pm



Quoting Knoxibus (Reply 214):
They are now realising they proposed the wrong aircraft...

Without any other option!
There was nothing to propose but the 767. They knew a triple 7 tanker would be way (!!) to big for the given RFP.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:57 pm

Well credit to the local Congressional team who is moving heaven and earth to try and force Congress to de facto award it to Boeing. This is the only reason I can see Boeing wanting a four-month extension - to allow our delegation more time to make it happen.

The KC-767 Advanced is outclassed pretty much across the board by the KC-30A. And since there are no spending caps at the DoD, the USAF is quite happy to spend more to get more. If a KC-30A win is presented to Congress as part of the Defense Budget, it will pass and the USAF (as well as NG/EADS) knows it which is why they want the KC-30A win to become official as soon as possible and written into the next budget because once it has been done, the WA State delegation's power is effectively nullified.

It appears based on data from Boeing that the 767's gear is too short to allow a 767-300 or 767-400 option. The angle of attack at rotation would be so shallow it would require significant runway length to get into the air without a re-profiled wing or more powerful engines to overcome it. Since Boeing doesn't need a better 767 passenger plane (they have the 787), I cannot see them committing the dollars to making it happen plus it would just push the program back later and later.

Boeing might actually be able to get a 777F proposal to win. It's bigger then the KC-30A, which would help with both the RFP credits and the USAF's desire to have the most plane it can get. Sure it will need more runway at MTOW, but the answer to that is don't fly it at MTOW to places that don't have the available runway. A KC-30A has an MTOW just over 500t. With an OEW of 120t, that means she can lift 380t. Assuming a KC-777 would have an OEW of 150t, adding 400t to that would be 550t. At that TOW (almost 200t below MTOW), she needs under 6000ft of runway.

And if the USAF slaps GE90-115B's on her instead of the standard -110Bs and uses the thrust-bump option to get another 6K total thrust, that will help field performance even more. But I am not sure Boeing can support up to one plane a month (assuming they already have a production increase planned to support passenger and commercial freighter sales) on the single available FAL (and there is no room for a second one).
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:59 pm



Quoting Knoxibus (Reply 214):
They are now realising they proposed the wrong aircraft...

B.S. AF in fact changed the basic requirement of the RFP from just meeting minimum capacity to asking for a bigger plane. It is not Boeing who proposed the wrong aircraft. It's AF who did not know what they wanted when they wrote the RFP

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:41 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 217):
AF in fact changed the basic requirement of the RFP from just meeting minimum capacity to asking for a bigger plane. It is not Boeing who proposed the wrong aircraft. It's AF who did not know what they wanted when they wrote the RFP

Where did the AF EVER say just meet the minimum requirement ?

Why did Boeing then increase the fuel load of the KC-767J to the KC-767AT, when the KC-767J met the "minimum"....

The USAF never specified a size, the only people who said "right size" is Boeing marketing.

The real B.S. is all the excuses people are using to come up with a reasons why the 767 is always going to be inferior to a A330 bases tanker. As I have ALWAYS maintained, the KC-30 is a more capable airframe. It was a more capable in 2002, and more capable in 2008.

The only commercial airframe Boeing has today that is more capable is the 777, and that capability comes at a price.

[Edited 2008-08-22 07:44:23]
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:32 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 218):
Where did the AF EVER say just meet the minimum requirement ?

Here: The RFP also identified as a KPP objective that the offerors’ “aircraft should be capable of exceeding” the threshold. See RFP, SRD § 3.2.1.1.1.2. Finally, the RFP specifically informed offerors that “[n]o consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives.” RFP § M.2.2.1.1.a.

Where did AF EVER say they wanted MORE than the minimum requirement in the RFP?

FACT: GAO said that AF only requires the minimum load and should not have given points for extra capability.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 218):
Why did Boeing then increase the fuel load of the KC-767J to the KC-767AT, when the KC-767J met the "minimum"....

Because the RFP requires that the tanker to have a KC-135 minimum fuel offload (KC-135 has fuel capacity of 200 klbs, while the KC-767J only 160 klbs, KC-767AT has 202 klbs)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 218):
The only commercial airframe Boeing has today that is more capable is the 777, and that capability comes at a price.

Just as the KC-30 comes at a price compared to the 767

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:39 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 216):
And since there are no spending caps at the DoD, the USAF is quite happy to spend more to get more.

Actually there are going to be some major spending caps at the DoD in the future as the Iraq SNAFU is going to cost a lot of money over the years, not only in operations, but also in rebuilding the military after most troops have left - which now looks like 2011.

Who ever gets the contract will end up having cost overruns and some delays as the AF won't be able to just let them build the tankers - they will continually add features and costs. That is going to mean fewer tankers funded in the future, or fewer fighters, or less money to develop weapon systems - take your pick.

The glory days of the Cold War are over in terms of giving the DoD everything they want. The guys with stars on their collar and in their eyes just don't realize it yet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:55 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 220):
Actually there are going to be some major spending caps at the DoD in the future as the Iraq SNAFU is going to cost a lot of money over the years, not only in operations, but also in rebuilding the military after most troops have left - which now looks like 2011.

Oh I agree down the road it will get tighter, which is why the USAF wants the RFP determined now and the budget written while there are not.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 220):
The glory days of the Cold War are over in terms of giving the DoD everything they want. The guys with stars on their collar and in their eyes just don't realize it yet.

"The Polish Missile Crisis" may very well be the catalyst that returns us to a Cold War situation between the US and the Russians.

On the plus side, the Warsaw Pact are all now part of NATO.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:19 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 219):
Where did AF EVER say they wanted MORE than the minimum requirement in the RFP?

From the USAF KC-X briefings/RFP release ...






Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 219):
Because the RFP requires that the tanker to have a KC-135 minimum fuel offload (KC-135 has fuel capacity of 200 klbs, while the KC-767J only 160 klbs, KC-767AT has 202 klbs)

Load of rubbish. The RFP does not say the aircraft need to lift over 200,000 lb, just to meet a minimum fuel offload vs range threshold, with an objective to exceed that. This is from a Boeing presentation, seems they understood that very well.



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 219):
Just as the KC-30 comes at a price compared to the 767

Reading the GAO report, the KC-30 airframe has a lower, not higher cost for the airframe.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:20 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 222):
From the USAF KC-X briefings/RFP release ...

It says best meet or exeeds. It does not say the higher excess the better it is. There is a difference.

Read the whole sentence where you only partially highlighted on the last document. It says the Government will award to the offeror that gives greatest CONFIDENCE that it will meet or exceed. It does not say the bigger, the more credits it will give. It does not say the government will award to the offeror that provides most excess capability.

All your document say is that the offerors should provide capability that meets or exceeds the thresholds. No where it says that the AF will consider that the excess capabilities will be given better considerations.

You seem to understand the requirement BETTER than the GAO.  sarcastic .

Quoting Zeke (Reply 222):
Load of rubbish. The RFP does not say the aircraft need to lift over 200,000 lb, just to meet a minimum fuel offload vs range threshold, with an objective to exceed that. This is from a Boeing presentation, seems they understood that very well.

So? Your statement said why didn't Boeing just offer the KC 767J, which has 40 klbs lower payload than the 767AT. Clearly it won't meet the minimum requirement which is only 20 klbs lower than the 767AT.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 222):
Reading the GAO report, the KC-30 airframe has a lower, not higher cost for the airframe.

So? the MPLCC is higher and that's what it is going to cost AF and us the taxpayer money. And that's the cost that matter to the bid process. Not just the airframe cost.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:31 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 221):
Oh I agree down the road it will get tighter, which is why the USAF wants the RFP determined now and the budget written while there are not.

It actually might start getting tighter In January, depending on the outcome of the elections. One good reason to hold off on a final decision - let the DoD present a full overview of the capital expenses needed projected over the next 10 years for rebuilding and fit the tanker program into that at a responsible lever, regardless of which company ends up with the contract.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 221):
"The Polish Missile Crisis" may very well be the catalyst that returns us to a Cold War situation between the US and the Russians.

Again, it may depend on who wins in November. One option tends to shoot from the hip a little faster than the other. Then there is SecState - will it be a Powell type or a Rice type? I think I can guess which candidate the Russians will have the most confrontational relationship with.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:22 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 219):
Because the RFP requires that the tanker to have a KC-135 minimum fuel offload (KC-135 has fuel capacity of 200 klbs, while the KC-767J only 160 klbs, KC-767AT has 202 klbs)

My God, you're right. That is actually shocking.. the KC-767 has equal fuel load to the 707-based KC-135??...


The KC-45 can offload more fuel than the KC-135, while it clearly is more efficient than the KC-135 as well. That should bring Boeing's fuel efficiency claims into stark relief. The small benefit of KC-767 fuel efficiency will be almost undetectable in military applications, especially with hundreds of KC-135 quad-jets flying about. Boeing needs to get real.


And, the KC-777 may be a lot more reasonable than anybody thought.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
You seem to understand the requirement BETTER than the GAO.

Gee I hope the semantics artists and lawyers at GAO get their flight suits real soon. Since they know more than the USAF about these requirements, I guess they should be providing our aerial defense.  Wow!

[Edited 2008-08-22 14:24:12]
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:27 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 225):
The KC-45 can offload more fuel than the KC-135, while it clearly is more efficient than the KC-135 as well. That should bring Boeing's fuel efficiency claims into stark relief. The small benefit of KC-767 fuel efficiency will be almost undetectable in military applications, especially with hundreds of KC-135 quad-jets flying about. Boeing needs to get real.

The large benefit of KC-45 fuel capacity is almost undetectable as well, since you don't need that capacity anyway.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 225):
Gee I hope the semantics artists and lawyers at GAO get their flight suits real soon. Since they know more than the USAF about these requirements, I guess they should be providing our aerial defense.

No, they understand what is written on the RFP, not what AF thought they might have said, mentioned, or deeply implied on the RFP.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:32 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 45):
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.

Since Boeing should realize they aren't going to win anyway, and since it seems they are being told to not withdraw their bid, maybe they should put up a 747-8 as a protest bid?  Smile

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 63):
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.

I understand where you are coming from, but the number of protests is only relevant to perception. Would anything be different if they had filed only 8 protests and all 8 were accepted? USAF could be perceived to be more unfair, no? And with 90 filed and 8 accepted, Boing could be perceived to be desperate? What if they had filed 900? 9,000?

All that really matters is GAO accepted 8 of Boeing's protests, and the RFP is being updated. Boeing is getting another bite of the apple, but it may be just as bitter as the last.
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
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:25 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 227):
All that really matters is GAO accepted 8 of Boeing's protests, and the RFP is being updated.

Since it only takes one item in a protest to be upheld a total of 8 demonstrates that some AF officers have been promoted to their level of incompetency. 8 is a major embarrassment to the AF and shows how bad they handled the selection. But then, maybe Airbus had the better wine.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:42 am



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
It says best meet or exeeds. It does not say the higher excess the better it is. There is a difference.

The first few slides are from the initial briefing in 2006, which Boeing did attend. It does says :

Fuel offload at radius, added objective to exceed threshold
The SRD was amended to reflect that
And credit will be given for KPP objectives

Then finally the USAF said, they want the the best aircraft.

At no stage did the USAF say not to exceed the threshold (like they specifically said for exceeding other things in the RFP), nor did the GAO find that USAF did not want that, Boeing knew this, that is why they increased the capability of the KC-767AT over the KC-767.

If Boeing genuinely thought the RFP did not ask for exceeding the threshold, they could have reduced their development costs, and risk profile by putting forward the same airframe as Italy, with the optional auxiliary tanks which already has an FAA STC on the 767.

Boeing's actions prior to the protest, do not match their words in the protest. Everyone knows Boeing put forward something like 110 complaints to the GAO, and the GAO only found 8 of them valid.

And the extra credit for fuel offload vs range, is one which I think the GAO report contradicts itself, as it said the USAF was right to use the extra capability for the Factor 5: IFARA analysis (which gives extra credit) and for calculating the aircraft fuel efficiency but giving the giving extra credit for the was not.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
You seem to understand the requirement BETTER than the GAO.

The GAO gave the USAF an English lesson with the RFP documentation based upon one sentence only, they did not disagree with the USAF wanting to exceed the threshold, or using the added capability in the IFARA analysis.

What the GAO pulled the USAF up on was "3.2.1.1.1.2 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)", in this new draft version 6, they moved that line up one paragraph, so now that is a part of (THRESHOLD, KPP #2).

The English lesson the GAO gave the USAF was based upon one sentence "No consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives", moving it from a KPP objective to a KPP threshold gives the USAF what it wants.

Boeing wanted the GAO to rule on the size and capability of the airframe, the GAO said that is all up to the USAF. And they further said, if the RFP does not meet the USAF objectives as the GAO interpreted them, change them to what they wanted. That have now made that change, and it is entirely constant with what they have said all along, including with what they put forward in their GAO submission.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
So? Your statement said why didn't Boeing just offer the KC 767J, which has 40 klbs lower payload than the 767AT. Clearly it won't meet the minimum requirement which is only 20 klbs lower than the 767AT.

More rubbish, the KC-767J can carry 160,666lb in the standard wing tanks, and 4,800 US gal (32,160lb) in optional aux tanks (which are available to all 767 models, and already installed on some 767 VIP aircraft) for a total of 192,826 lb, the limiting factor is the MTOW of 395,000lb.

The KC-767AT increased the MTOW (and OEW also increased) to match the 767-300ER MTOW of 412,000 lb, that allowed them to uplift another 10,000 lb of fuel, which give the new capability of over 202,000 lb.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
So? the MPLCC is higher and that's what it is going to cost AF and us the taxpayer money.

The only cost that the tax payer WILL pay is the initial airframe costs, the operating costs of the airframe are all up to the way the USAF decides to operate/deploy them over the next 20-60 years.

The estimated operating costs may or may not be incurred, and no one has decided to include the savings generated by operating the KC-X in the reduced operating cost over the older less efficient KC-135 and KC-10 models.

No one, including the USAF knows how much that will be.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:16 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
The English lesson the GAO gave the USAF was based upon one sentence "No consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives", moving it from a KPP objective to a KPP threshold gives the USAF what it wants.

When I was a small business owner I would probably be exposed to making that type of error - small guys do that all the time.

The AF isn't a small organization. They have lawyers on board, supposedly intelligent general officers, etc. Having the GAO give them a lesson in how to write basic parts of the RFP shows that a lot of supposedly intelligent people didn't know what they were doing and actually needed that lesson.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
And they further said, if the RFP does not meet the USAF objectives as the GAO interpreted them, change them to what they wanted.

And changing the description of the plane they want is a short cut to developing a new RFP. It also gives Boeing a very legitimate reason for requesting time to complete the engineering and costing of this new design objective.

Obviously NG/Airbus doesn't want Boeing to get the opportunity to present something that meets the new specs. If NG/Airbus gets their way then Boeing pulls an Airbus and walks away, leaving the AF to head back to congress, who might say 'no competition, no funding'.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
The only cost that the tax payer WILL pay is the initial airframe costs, the operating costs of the airframe are all up to the way the USAF decides to operate/deploy them over the next 20-60 years.

The AF is not a private company. Every cost over the next 20 - 60 years will be paid by the taxpayers. The issue that is neglected all the time is the potential for very limited funds in the future for the DoD, flowing down to the AF and then flowing down to the tanker program.

The inability of some in the DoD to project long term needs was demonstrated in the Rummy years when families had to personally buy body armor for their kids or spouses in Iraq, and Hummers without armor. Shows a lot of bad judgement and I'd prefer that the AF doesn't show the same level of bad judgement in looking at total long term costs of the tankers that will be offered.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:01 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):

The AF isn't a small organization. They have lawyers on board, supposedly intelligent general officers, etc. Having the GAO give them a lesson in how to write basic parts of the RFP shows that a lot of supposedly intelligent people didn't know what they were doing and actually needed that lesson.

Many people/agencies were involved with the RFP, including the GAO and members of other services. Everyone thought the RFP was as clear as it could be, it was not a trivial document, it spanned 39 files, and thousands of pages.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
And changing the description of the plane they want is a short cut to developing a new RFP.

They have not changed the description or the minimum requirement, the KC-767AT meets the new draft requirements.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
It also gives Boeing a very legitimate reason for requesting time to complete the engineering and costing of this new design objective.

What new design objective ? Nothing is new, the baseline requirement has not changed at all. The KC-767AT meets the baseline requirement even under revision 6.

And even if the USAF were to give Boeing more time, there is no guarantee that they will come up with a better solution. It does guarantee that the USAF will have to delay the KC-X from the fleet longer, and they will not be able to retire the KC-135s as fast as they like to.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
Obviously NG/Airbus doesn't want Boeing to get the opportunity to present something that meets the new specs

Sorry, it is not a new spec, it is reversion 6 of the same spec, Boeing did not need 6 months each time the RFP was revised before. Boeing and NG only had 60 days previously to respond to the RFP, the USAF is saying 45 days is a reasonable time frame for a reply to the slight changes.

Please note this is 45 days form when RFP is finally released, the draft has been around already for a few weeks, plus all the extra time the had while formulating their protest, waiting for the GAO to rule etc....Boeing has had heaps of time.

EVERYONE can see that Boeing is doing nothing but stalling.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
Every cost over the next 20 - 60 years will be paid by the taxpayers.

And all the savings made by deploying the KC-X over the KC-135 and the KC-10 will likewise save taxpayers, but that is not taken into account. Do you think it is free to have about 100 KC-135s in maintenance at any one time ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11181
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:52 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 225):
The KC-45 can offload more fuel than the KC-135, while it clearly is more efficient than the KC-135 as well. That should bring Boeing's fuel efficiency claims into stark relief. The small benefit of KC-767 fuel efficiency will be almost undetectable in military applications, especially with hundreds of KC-135 quad-jets flying about. Boeing needs to get real.

While the KC-30 can off-load more fuel than the KC-135, it is not more efficient than the KC-135E/R/T in fuel burned per flying hour. The KC-135E burns (averaged) 9,000lb/hour cruise, the KC135R/T burns (averaged) 7,500lb/hour cruise. The KC-135R burns about half what the KC-30 will burn, cruise, averaged.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
So? Your statement said why didn't Boeing just offer the KC 767J, which has 40 klbs lower payload than the 767AT. Clearly it won't meet the minimum requirement which is only 20 klbs lower than the 767AT.

More rubbish, the KC-767J can carry 160,666lb in the standard wing tanks, and 4,800 US gal (32,160lb) in optional aux tanks (which are available to all 767 models, and already installed on some 767 VIP aircraft) for a total of 192,826 lb, the limiting factor is the MTOW of 395,000lb.

That would be true IF Japan always uses the optional tanks. The Japanese KC-767J was bought with removable lower deck fuel tanks. But, they normally do not carry these extra tanks, unless they are in an exercise, or receiver deployment.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 223):
So? the MPLCC is higher and that's what it is going to cost AF and us the taxpayer money.

The only cost that the tax payer WILL pay is the initial airframe costs, the operating costs of the airframe are all up to the way the USAF decides to operate/deploy them over the next 20-60 years.

With that line of thinking, you could be correct. The USAF could accept the newly built KC-45s in MOB, and fly them directly to AMARC and scrap them. That will eliminate all future operating costs.  Yeah sure

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
The estimated operating costs may or may not be incurred, and no one has decided to include the savings generated by operating the KC-X in the reduced operating cost over the older less efficient KC-135 and KC-10 models.

Maybe because there is no savings?  duck   duck   duck 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
No one, including the USAF knows how much that will be.

BS, Zeke, and you know it. By that way of thinking, your airline has no idea of future operating costs either. The USAF knows how many training hours the average crew member needs to gain, then maintane proficency. They know the approximate MTBF of many parts and compoents on each airplane type. They know how many airplanes are needed for this or that O-PLAN. They know approximately how many hours are needed for surge ops. They plan on an average cost of fuel at $XXX/bbl.

What the USAF, or any other large organization, does not know is exact dollars needed, but they can plan it to within about a +/- 5% accuracy.

The USAF, in this case knows how much it will cost to fly 179 KC-30s or KC-767s for the next 40 years, with reasonable certainty. What they do not know is how much will planned fuel off-loads will effect the bottom line, because they have no idea how much fuel these tankers will need to off-load (because they don't know where all the wars over the next 40 years will be).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14983
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:20 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):

While the KC-30 can off-load more fuel than the KC-135, it is not more efficient than the KC-135E/R/T in fuel burned per flying hour. The KC-135E burns (averaged) 9,000lb/hour cruise, the KC135R/T burns (averaged) 7,500lb/hour cruise. The KC-135R burns about half what the KC-30 will burn, cruise, averaged.

Closer to 12,000 lb per hr for the A332, and lower if you talk about the same fuel payload as the KC-135, and the KC-30 is a 3 crew aircraft.

The biggest advantage for the KC-X is on the maintenance side, the KC-135 spends about 1 out of every 5 days on deport level maintenance (USAF figures are 400 days per 1825 days)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
With that line of thinking, you could be correct. The USAF could accept the newly built KC-45s in MOB, and fly them directly to AMARC and scrap them. That will eliminate all future operating costs

They are more likely to park more KC-135s when the KC-X goes into service, saving on those direct operating costs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
Maybe because there is no savings?

There will be.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
BS, Zeke, and you know it. By that way of thinking, your airline has no idea of future operating costs either.

Airlines have medium to long term plans which include fleet expansion and route development, they can control the future somewhat.

The USAF does not know which bases it will close, where the next conflict breaks out, what its fleet will bring in 20 years, or of future problems with their existing tanker fleet. The maintenance costs of the current tanker fleet has increased significantly over th last few years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
What the USAF, or any other large organization, does not know is exact dollars needed, but they can plan it to within about a +/- 5% accuracy.

They were unable to plan for the current high levels of maintenance required on the KC-135 fleet a decade ago, costs have increased significantly, in some cases they have been 20-40% out.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
trex8
Posts: 5554
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:47 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
The AF isn't a small organization. They have lawyers on board, supposedly intelligent general officers, etc. Having the GAO give them a lesson in how to write basic parts of the RFP shows that a lot of supposedly intelligent people didn't know what they were doing and actually needed that lesson.

and if you get two lawyers in a room, they can't agree on anything. if every contract and law was so crystal clear, there would be a tenth of the number of attorneys gainfully employed and no need for a supreme court!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 230):
The inability of some in the DoD to project long term needs was demonstrated in the Rummy years when families had to personally buy body armor for their kids or spouses in Iraq, and Hummers without armor.

that was a short term need, and the failure to provide for it was because they were deluded into thinking there was no ongoing insurgency or need for a post saddam overthrow occupation
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:52 pm



Quoting TREX8 (Reply 234):
that was a short term need, and the failure to provide for it was because they were deluded into thinking there was no ongoing insurgency or need for a post saddam overthrow occupation

But the DoD knew about body armor - they just didn't want to allocate the money to buy some for troops, even in peace time.

Think about it - you have a DoD that believes that there is a need for X number of troops that could go into battle. You spend a lot of money on each one for training, weapons, salaries, etc., but you don't provide them with basic (and relatively cheap) armor that could keep them alive and fighting.

The general didn't allocate the money because there were too many major capital programs the various branches of the DoD wanted to spend money on. Not impressive for this old enlisted man.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:27 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
The KC-135E burns (averaged) 9,000lb/hour cruise, the KC135R/T burns (averaged) 7,500lb/hour cruise. The KC-135R burns about half what the KC-30 will burn, cruise, averaged.

So you are saying the KC-30 is less fuel efficient per fuel offload (as the KC-30 has approx 20% higher fuel load)?

Had no idea the KC-135 was that efficient. The A330 fuel burns I have seen were around 1750g/hr which is, indeed a good deal more than the KC-135 by your numbers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:01 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 236):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 232):
The KC-135E burns (averaged) 9,000lb/hour cruise, the KC135R/T burns (averaged) 7,500lb/hour cruise. The KC-135R burns about half what the KC-30 will burn, cruise, averaged.

So you are saying the KC-30 is less fuel efficient per fuel offload (as the KC-30 has approx 20% higher fuel load)?

Had no idea the KC-135 was that efficient. The A330 fuel burns I have seen were around 1750g/hr which is, indeed a good deal more than the KC-135 by your numbers.

I think in reality you would need 2 kc135 (or more) to accomplish mission the KC45 can do with a single ship / crew un-refuelled..



A KC45 replacing a KC-135 means a new world for logistic power. I think thats why Boeing and its supporters hate the KC45 so much. It just isn't good news for C17 future orders and chartered 747F and 767F fleets..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:38 pm

Doesn't the chart in reply #237 justify a larger aircraft such as a A340, 777 or 747 for this competition? If the A330 is better due to its size - then logically - even larger planes are better.

I realize that larger planes cost more but if that larger size is mitigated by better efficiencies then they might win. That was the logic the USAF supposedly used in picking the A330. I also read somewhere the USAF is considering a large aircraft's ability to remain on station for a longer period of time (providing fuel as needed) a major plus.

For example - if you had 12 or 25 large 747 tankers staying on station at one location for many hours allowing receiver aircraft to come and go as needed - how effective would that be? To do the same mission how many 767's or even 330's would you need? Two or three times as many? Those smaller tankers would need to reload at that critical "forward" base. What happens if that forward base has been denied for use? Can those smaller medium sized tankers haul the needed fuel thousands of miles to the fight and still have enough to offload and go back home?

We thought Russia was a friend of sorts - can we ever be certain who our friends are? Why buy tankers that require us to be beholden to some foreign country (based on the use of their forward base)? Seems to me the USAF planners need to reconsider that strategy.

I apologize for my little rant but we need to think out of the box here. The A330 was a step in that direction but it is not enough. This competition needs to be reevaluated for the changing world stage. Take a look at the next to the last page of the RAND/KC-135 AoA where it talks about this and other possible scenarios impacting the KC-X program.

The first is that conditions in the future might change in such a way that decision makers would wish they had acquired fewer, or no, new tankers earlier. Such conditions might include a change in the geopolitical situation...."



http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:42 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 235):
Think about it - you have a DoD that believes that there is a need for X number of troops that could go into battle. You spend a lot of money on each one for training, weapons, salaries, etc., but you don't provide them with basic (and relatively cheap) armor that could keep them alive and fighting.

The troops were provided with body armor, Interceptor OTV. The issue was that they were not provided with "Dragon Skin" armor at a cost of $5000 each.

"The Army tested Pinnacle’s SOV 3000 Level VI Dragon Skin vests in May of that year at the National Institute of Justice-certified H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md. In that test, Dragon Skin “failed miserably,” according to Army officials.

"The tests subjected Dragon Skin to the same test protocols the Army uses to test its body armor, the ceramic plates that sit in pockets in the outer tactical vest and are known as Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts. Four out of the eight Dragon Skin vests tested failed after suffering 13 first- or second-shot complete penetrations with 7.62mmx63mm APM2 Armor Piercing ammunition, Army officials said.

"That same month, Pinnacle also became the subject of a joint investigation by the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service after Dragon Skin failed two Air Force tests in February 2006."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/army_armor_040208w/

So it would appear the DoD's original call was the correct one, and the subsequent "scandal" was purely political. Gee, what a surprise.
 
trex8
Posts: 5554
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:43 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 238):
The first is that conditions in the future might change in such a way that decision makers would wish they had acquired fewer, or no, new tankers earlier. Such conditions might include a change in the geopolitical situation...."

so Rummy was right!
"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:25 pm

If foreigh air forces started thinking buying US weapons are an unneccessary risk, that would hit companies like Boeing, LM and NG like nothing hit them before. Geo economical reality.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:13 am



Quoting Redflyer (Reply 211):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 210):
Boeing needs to come to grips with the reality that they don't deserve to win either KC-X or CSAR-X unless their willing to ante up with their latest in technologies.

I think that is what they are trying to do if they're actually bidding for more time.

Boeing either doesn't know or doesn't care for the fact that the USAF needed new tankers like 5 years ago when Boeing tried to pull a fast one on them then - asking for another six months is like sleeping with your best friends sister after her wedding: it's just downright rude and conduct unbecoming good buds.

The USAF is trying to force Boeing to sh¡t or get off the pot!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:30 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 237):
A KC45 replacing a KC-135 means a new world for logistic power. I think thats why Boeing and its supporters hate the KC45 so much. It just isn't good news for C17 future orders and chartered 747F and 767F fleets..

I think the USAF is ordering 180 tankers because they need - wait for it - tankers!

If they didn't need tankers, they'd just retire the oldest tankers and order cargo planes.

But that's not what's happening.
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
 
trex8
Posts: 5554
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:04 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 243):
I think the USAF is ordering 180 tankers because they need - wait for it - tankers!

If they didn't need tankers, they'd just retire the oldest tankers and order cargo planes.

they need tankers, they need transports, they need fighters, CAS, CSAR , ISR etc etc

the fact is they went looking for tankers and found they could get something which would help in another area. they needed to replace some cars and found that a minivan would be better for the job the cars are doing and to do some other jobs other vehicles are doing and since they know they can't replace the cars and full size vans and trucks with the exact same number they have now, they figure getting some minivans is the way to go to replace the cars. Boeing feel the AF can only be allowed to get cars to replace cars and unfortunately they don't make minivans .
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:04 am

[Trex8,reply=244]and found they could get something which would help in another area. [/quote]

You do realise that the USAF has found it FAR cheaper to ship things by commercial carriers unless dropping them into bases/areas unsuited for... comercial airframes?

Hmmm lets see what is the KC30?

yah.

So the USAF can spend MORE money and putting MORE hours on thier KC30 which also reduces thier tanker fleet by 1 frame..... Instead of calling up one of the service providers they have on contract to haul stuff with.

Yes, cargo capacity is worth *something* but frankly when you look at what a tanker DOES, its on the list of things you can happily do without in exchange for other benifits.
 
trex8
Posts: 5554
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:19 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 245):
You do realise that the USAF has found it FAR cheaper to ship things by commercial carriers unless dropping them into bases/areas unsuited for... comercial airframes?

when the shooting stops those commercial planes go in, when was the last time they deployed a combat aircraft squadron overseas and the various paraphernalia which they need was flown on with the combat platforms on a commercial plane? When McCain/Obama sends those Raptors to Georgia or Taiwan in a few years they won't be accompanied initially by a commercial cargo plane.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:26 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 244):
they need tankers, they need transports, they need fighters, CAS, CSAR , ISR etc etc

the fact is they went looking for tankers and found they could get something which would help in another area. they needed to replace some cars and found that a minivan would be better for the job the cars are doing and to do some other jobs other vehicles are doing and since they know they can't replace the cars and full size vans and trucks with the exact same number they have now, they figure getting some minivans is the way to go to replace the cars. Boeing feel the AF can only be allowed to get cars to replace cars and unfortunately they don't make minivans .

 checkmark 

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 245):
Yes, cargo capacity is worth *something* but frankly when you look at what a tanker DOES, its on the list of things you can happily do without in exchange for other benifits.

Tanker are used for what they can do. The Kc135 is a good tanker and lousy transport aircraft. That why it DOES carry limmited cargo. It it would be a great freighter it would be different.

I think the issue is the KC30 is a better tanker and a better transport. It has more growth potential and a wide and growing worldwide A330 support base. And cockpit commonality with thousands of commercial A320/A330 series pilots all over the US for the next x0 yrs..

I think the aerospace community would have been chocked if the USAF had selected the KC767 over much more potent KC30. Ask the other airforces who did this competition.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:42 pm

Has there even been a thread where Keesje participated in, but did not post photos in?

I am starting to wonder if he works for a marketing agency, as though somehow showing us a photo will magically win people over to his argument.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:04 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 246):
when the shooting stops those commercial planes go in, when was the last time they deployed a combat aircraft squadron overseas and the various paraphernalia which they need was flown on with the combat platforms on a commercial plane? When McCain/Obama sends those Raptors to Georgia or Taiwan in a few years they won't be accompanied initially by a commercial cargo plane.

On such a deploy, I'd expect the tankers to be busy doing what they do best - tankering - and I'd expect C-5/C-17 to be doing what they do best - cargo. The USAF doesn't keep 480 KC-135s and 60 KC-10s flying because they need cargo planes, they do it because they need tankers, and lots of them. Those Raptors won't make it to Georgia or Taiwan if they don't have a bunch of tankers dragging them along. They don't bother having an extra crew member (boom operator), special equipment (boom, extra tanks) and lots of training just so for the heck of it.
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
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buckeyetech, Nomadd, smithbs and 24 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