Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 20124
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:40 am

Given the length of the original thread and the continued delay in the issuing of the final RFP, please continue discussion of the KC-X bid process here. When the final RFP is issued we will start a new thread.

Original thread:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/94196/
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:29 am

So it seems if Boeing should not be selected for the new RFP, they have the right to appeal that too. Will it ever end?

Boeing also seems to be threatening a non-bid if they don't get a four month extension on the deadline for the current RFP. Clearly that will put the funding decision into the hands of the next Congress. I think that's already true: all that is funded in this year's budget is the four development KC-45As, and those funds haven't been paid out due to the current protest. So what is Boeing gaining? Four months doesn't seem to be enough time to come up with an all-new proposal, or is it?

Maybe they're waiting for the administration of President Palin 8 years hence, god help us?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:13 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter):
Given the length of the original thread and the continued delay in the issuing of the final RFP, please continue discussion of the KC-X bid process here. When the final RFP is issued we will start a new thread.

Indeed became long & everything was said twice at least. Couldn't we adjust the title of thsi thread to :

"New Boeing & NG/EADS tanker proposals, what's in? "
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):
Boeing also seems to be threatening a non-bid if they don't get a four month extension on the deadline for the current RFP.

And there is the problem for the AF.

First the AF played some rather queer games and that resulted in the first protest by Boeing in 30 years.

Then the GAO upheld Boeing's protest, roasting the AF rather strongly.

Now the AF is wanting a different tanker (larger, multi-task plane) than they specified in the original RFP. They also want it before Bush leaves office.

All this is resulting in a mad dash to a decision and now Boeing is talking about "pulling a NG/Airbus" and walking away from the game. The AF changed the rules to keep NG/Airbus in the game - will they change them again to keep Boeing in? Or will they blow the deal again.

The other queer thing about the dash - if it is delayed then Airbus will be able to change their proposal to the A330F, which might be a better option in the long run for the AF.

So many choices, so many problems and such poor execution on the part of the AF/DoD.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:16 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Ken777

One way to look at it. I think the USAF always made clear they wanted a multi task platform reading from the original request for proposal. Some refused to read / understand & accept.


Spring 2007, DoD’s top military transportation commanders expressed a strong preference for a multi-role tanker. Gen. Norton Schwartz, Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) :

"What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that
can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane
to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over
Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive.
But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25
years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission
airplane to me makes sense."


As stated endlessly & ignored / denied as endlessly the requirements were clear & understood. One of the parties however choose to sail another direction maybe because they didn't like the implications of said requirements.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:46 pm

It seems to me it would be wise for the DoD to put this thing in a holding pattern until the new Administration and Congress take office in January. Regardless of whether it's McCain or Obama, we will have lots of new faces in senior leadership positions, and that could result in yet more delays and changes if they aren't getting a deal they're happy with.

In my view this whole tanker thing could have, and should have, been resolved two years ago, but it would be a mistake to try and push it to conclusion now and risk yet more problems.

[Edited 2008-09-05 08:49:39]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:49 pm

Keesje is right. Also, the Air Force has been very careful not to tell the manufacturers what airplanes to offer. This is how you get the best out of the process.

The problem is Boeing decided what airplane they wanted to sell; refused to listen to its customer; and is now playing the part of the jilted lover. They have other and more appropriate alternatives, but offering those would require some actual work.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:47 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
I think the USAF always made clear they wanted a multi task platform reading from the original request for proposal.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
As stated endlessly & ignored / denied as endlessly the requirements were clear & understood. One of the parties however choose to sail another direction maybe because they didn't like the implications of said requirements.

What matters is what is stated in the RFP, not what one general (regardless of position) says to the press, and the GAO has pointed out what the issues with the RFP are.

Suppose the shoe was on the opposite foot. Suppose the RFP said that extra credit was being given for tankerage beyond the minimum yet the USAF chose the 767. Wouldn't Airbus be right to challenge the decision?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:08 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Suppose the shoe was on the opposite foot. Suppose the RFP said that extra credit was being given for tankerage beyond the minimum yet the USAF chose the 767. Wouldn't Airbus be right to challenge the decision?

The RFP was going to be protested no matter who won.

The issues with the RFP have been corrected and Boeing is not a happy camper. Why? It is in writing this time.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:29 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 8):
The issues with the RFP have been corrected and Boeing is not a happy camper. Why? It is in writing this time.

Well, had it been in writing the last time, Boeing would have had 1 year to come up with a proposal. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same 1 year opportunity this time?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:01 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9):
Well, had it been in writing the last time, Boeing would have had 1 year to come up with a proposal. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same 1 year opportunity this time?

Boeing chose the low cost alternative as this was third time they tried to pawn this airplane off on the Air Force. Boeing has known since February what they are biding against. They knew on a fair comparison the NG airplane was better, and hoped that they could marshal enough political pressure to get NG dismissed. That didn't work so now they still want to go the cheap route. Get on with it or pull out.

I could care less who wins. Why should any air force purchase already out-dated technology that has to last another 40 to 50 years? That would only mean the first update sooner rather than later.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:30 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
such poor execution on the part of the AF/DoD.

They are warfighting experts, not chamber maids for the Boeing company. They already picked the plane they wanted. Did they execute a watertight piss-proof contract... no... but that is not the strong suit of the USAF, it's fighting wars and global security. That's their job and they do it well. Boeing will always be stronger on contract games (better lawyers, etc) and that isn't something that will change.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 10):
I could care less who wins.

Me too. I just want the USAF to get the best fleet they can. The best judge of that is the Unites States Air Force and they have already spoken... loudly.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:47 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 10):
Boeing chose the low cost alternative as this was third time they tried to pawn this airplane off on the Air Force.

The third time? Did I miss an RFP somewhere in the last few years?

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 10):
Boeing has known since February what they are biding against.

You're absolutely right: they've known that since February when it finally became obvious the USAF wanted the larger plane.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 10):
They knew on a fair comparison the NG airplane was better,

The fair comparison is yet to happen. It was not fair in the last round. Hopefully it will be in the next round.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 10):
I could care less who wins.

Respectfully, your comments on this subject indicate otherwise.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
The best judge of that is the Unites States Air Force and they have already spoken... loudly.

Well, the best judge spoke already on the matter a few years ago when they gave the contract to Boeing and its 767, but we saw where that got them.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:10 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
They are warfighting experts, not chamber maids for the Boeing company. They already picked the plane they wanted. Did they execute a watertight piss-proof contract... no... but that is not the strong suit of the USAF, it's fighting wars and global security. That's their job and they do it well. Boeing will always be stronger on contract games (better lawyers, etc) and that isn't something that will change.

The military is pretty good at war fighting, but as the tanker deal (and the DDG 1000 SNAFU) shows they aren't too hot at procurement, plus various ethics problems, poor control of nuclear weapons, etc. present a fairly high lack of confidence of the DoD with the current administration.

Boeing isn't always stronger on contract games. NG as well as other companies have done fairly well over the years. The problem is that it was the job of the AF to run the tanker program at an ethical and legal level that would not result in public humiliation from the GAO. They failed and the people that caused that failure should be replaced before going forward and being humiliated yet again.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:18 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
public humiliation from the GAO. They failed and the people that caused that failure should be replaced before going forward and being humiliated yet again.

They failed at a game that is not their strong suit. But let's not ignore that the USAF mostly succeeds at their primary mission, which is controlling the airspace over 90% of Earth. As long as they are not humiliated on the field of battle then I think the USAF is on solid ground.

The procurement scandal of c1996 was an ethical failure at USAF and (primarily) Boeing. The 2007-2008 "scandal" was simple mischief by Boeing and I exonerate the USAF 100% on it. They did their job and then Boeing started trying to play God.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:33 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
The third time? Did I miss an RFP somewhere in the last few years?

The first attempt was a purchase which lead to the failed lease now this one. I count that as three.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
You're absolutely right: they've known that since February when it finally became obvious the USAF wanted the larger plane.

So what have they been doing since then except pissing and moaning? Nothing evidently. By 01 November they should have 3 proposal's (767-200AT; 767-400 derivative; 74 derivative) in the DoD's hands.

As a Boeing shareholder I am embarrassed at management's handling of the entire process. Unfortunately my meager shares mean nothing to Boeing's management.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:21 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
Me too. I just want the USAF to get the best fleet they can. The best judge of that is the Unites States Air Force and they have already spoken... loudly.

They may be the best judge, but they aren't the only judge. The USAF knows this and they should be able to get their shit together when it comes to procurement.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
They failed at a game that is not their strong suit. But let's not ignore that the USAF mostly succeeds at their primary mission, which is controlling the airspace over 90% of Earth. As long as they are not humiliated on the field of battle then I think the USAF is on solid ground.

The fact that they are doing their current mission so well speaks to the fact that in the past they knew how to do procurement well, but now they are failing to do so.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:15 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
The third time? Did I miss an RFP somewhere in the last few years?

The first attempt was a purchase which lead to the failed lease now this one. I count that as three.

Ah, you were counting the yet-to-be-released RFP as the 3rd one.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
You're absolutely right: they've known that since February when it finally became obvious the USAF wanted the larger plane.

So what have they been doing since then except pissing and moaning? Nothing evidently. By 01 November they should have 3 proposal's (767-200AT; 767-400 derivative; 74 derivative) in the DoD's hands.

As a purported Boeing shareholder, I don't think you want them spending valuable time and money putting together a proposal to an RFP that has yet to be released. It could turn into a cat-herding endeavor, especially since the USAF seems to be having difficulty compiling and releasing what will be the 3rd RFP in this long-running saga.
 
SpeedBirdA380
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:57 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:13 pm

I love reading all these never-ending argument's. They just go on and on and on.........

But as a person who has very little idea of what he is talking about on this subject could someone please answer me the following question's?

1. Is the US Air Force not capable of making up it's own mind of which tanker it want's? I mean you read all these GAO ruling's telling the US Air force how bad they have been and you get an image of the US Airforce standing in the corner of the room like a little child as the big bad teacher called the GAO discipline's them for bad behavior! It's like the US Airforce need's a nanny to check on them and monitor everything they are doing! - Is this the case???

2. If the US airforce deliberately manipulated the RFP to favour EAD's/NG then surely those people should be held accountable and possibly face criminal charge's of corruption?? Who are these people??
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:49 am



Quoting Speedbirda380 (Reply 18):
1. Is the US Air Force not capable of making up it's own mind of which tanker it want's?

You ask very good questions. The problem is, like any organization regardless of its purpose or reputation, the USAF is governed by human beings. And human beings are all too often fallible. I'm not saying the USAF's preference for the NG/EADS airframe is not valid. But if the USAF is capable of making up its own mind then why did we not stick with the original RFP back in 2003? The answer is obvious if you know the history, and the history of that RFP is intertwined with certain people, some of whom spent time in jail because of that award.

Quoting Speedbirda380 (Reply 18):
2. If the US airforce deliberately manipulated the RFP to favour EAD's/NG then surely those people should be held accountable and possibly face criminal charge's of corruption??

Not necessarily. Manipulating a contract does not automatically make it a criminal act, unless it was for personal enrichment. It just invalidates the contract award, as has in fact happened.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:11 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
I exonerate the USAF 100% on it.

The GAO didn't exonerate the AF 100%. They basically tore the AF a new one.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
The 2007-2008 "scandal" was simple mischief by Boeing

Considering that this was the first protest by Boeing in 30 years I think it is more than mischief. How many DoD contracts did Boeing loose during those 30 years and not file a protest. That 30 year record is just as imposing as the GAO ruling. If there was any mischief it was between some folks in AF Procurement and NG/Airbus, but that may take some time for it to be discovered through various investigations.

Quoting Speedbirda380 (Reply 18):
I mean you read all these GAO ruling's telling the US Air force how bad they have been and you get an image of the US Airforce standing in the corner of the room like a little child as the big bad teacher called the GAO discipline's them for bad behavior!

That's about it in a nutshell. Except we're talking about silly things like policies, regulations, laws, ethics, etc.

Maybe I set too high a standard for AF Officers. Might be because the the XO on the Long Beach when I served on her got his 4th strips while still XO and went on to serve as CINCPACFLT and CNO. Maybe I've just been exposed to a different caliber of officer than the AF assigns to their Procurement Division.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:32 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19):
Manipulating a contract does not automatically make it a criminal act, unless it was for personal enrichment. It just invalidates the contract award, as has in fact happened.

Its called the "Procurement Integrity Act". Excerpts below.


Disclosing and Obtaining Contractor Bid or Proposal Information or Source Selection Information

A present or former employee of, or person acting on behalf of or advising, the U.S. on a procurement, who has or had access to such information shall not disclose it before the award of the contract to which the information relates. (48 CFR 3.104-4(a))

No person shall knowingly obtain such information before the award of the contract to which the information relates. (48 CFR 3.104-4(b))

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ethics/procureb.htm


Sec. 3.104-11 Criminal and civil penalties, and further administrative remedies.

Criminal and civil penalties, and administrative remedies, may apply
to conduct which violates the Act (see 3.104-4). See 33.102(f) for
special rules regarding bid protests. See 3.104-10 for administrative
remedies relating to contracts.


http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ethics/procurea.htm
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:41 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
As a purported Boeing shareholder, I don't think you want them spending valuable time and money putting together a proposal to an RFP that has yet to be released. It could turn into a cat-herding endeavor, especially since the USAF seems to be having difficulty compiling and releasing what will be the 3rd RFP in this long-running saga.

You still are forgetting the original proposal that failed and led to the lease deal, but is it 2 or 3 or 4 doesn't matter. The fact is it is more than one.

As a Boeing shareholder I expect management to provide products that will satisfy their customer's wants. They have yet to show that in this competition. By now Boeing knows what needs to be done and should be 90% done with their new proposals. Hopefully this has happened, and all we are hearing now is corporate bluffing.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:32 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21):

Well, the GAO ruled that the USAF treated one vendor differently than another vendor to the detriment of that vendor. Maybe that is why they ruled the USAF has to reimburse Boeing for all legal costs associated with the appeal. However, and unless evidence comes forth to the contrary, I don't think any criminal act occurred in the selection process.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
By now Boeing knows what needs to be done and should be 90% done with their new proposals.

Boeing may know very well what needs to be done, but starting from scratch with a completely different proposal takes quite some time. The RFP that was awarded in February took over a year to complete. At best, Boeing has known since last month, when DoD publicized the proposed revisions, the precise details. So they are one month into this endeavor and they are getting word that they will have roughly 60 more days to complete their proposal. It's going to take them far more time than that to field a completely new proposal. They could just propose the 767 airframe again, but why should they since they NOW know (because it's finally in writing) that the USAF prefers a larger tanker.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:17 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
Boeing may know very well what needs to be done, but starting from scratch with a completely different proposal takes quite some time.

It may take them forever even, because they simply don't have a suitable platform matching the A330.

Let's face it: no version of the 767 is even remotely competive to the A330, especially not when cargo capabilities come into full effect (and they clearly do in this RFP). The market has spoken overwhelmingly on the 767 vs. A330 years ago already and Boeing has tried every thrick in the box already with the 767-4ER to turn the tide. They've failed completely, because they'd need a new (far larger and wider) wing and a larger and wider cross fuselage. In fact they'd need an conceptual A330 copy... which they only have in the 787. 

But a tanker version of that plane won't be available till 2025 or so at best, so all Boeing can do in the mean time is to try to block the process of the USAF getting the tanker it really and urgently wants NOW, just because they can't make it themselves, yet don't want the USAF to buy it elsewhere.

Great American company Boeing is: waving the US flag on every occasion and employing the US government as its most important international lobbyist, yet doing everything possible to make sure the US military will still have to fight wars with areal refuelers of over half a century old, thus weakening the US military and putting its soldiers at prolongued greater risk, not even for the sake of its own personal profit, but for the sake of preventing a competitor to bag a profit! How immoral can you go?

[Edited 2008-09-06 12:20:39]
 
SpeedBirdA380
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:57 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:46 pm

Thank's for all your reply's.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19):
The problem is, like any organization regardless of its purpose or reputation, the USAF is governed by human beings. And human beings are all too often fallible.

Sadly a very true statment. There are a lot of human being's who only care about serving one's own need's instead of the need's of the people they are employed to take care of.

I hope the the US Air Force get the tanker they want......Unfortunatley it probably wont be anytime soon.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:08 am



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 24):
But a tanker version of that plane won't be available till 2025 or so at best, so all Boeing can do in the mean time is to try to block the process of the USAF getting the tanker it really and urgently wants NOW,

Maybe the AF will decide, with their new found wisdom on larger multi-purpose tankers, that what they really need is to wait on the KC-X and go directly with the KC-Y. Gives the 777, 340 and 748 a vigorous review. Also provides a better multi-purpose aircraft than either the 330 or the 767. Also gives the 787/350 an opportunity to mature a bit more and allows the AF the opportunity to then consider a newer plane than either the 767 or 330.

The AF is urgent in their desires because there is an election in November. There is also, finally, the potential of the Iraq War winding down, with some very heavy finding needs in all branches of the DoD. I get a bit concerned about the "urgent need" when it appears that it is an election that is driving the urgency. But then I currently have little confidence in the AF.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 24):
How immoral can you go?

We might find out after a vigorous investigation of the AF-NG/Airbus relationship. Actually lets add McCain and his letters to that investigation and see where the chips fall.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:35 am

Boeing machinsts going on strike again doesn't exactly instill confidence in the ability of Boeing to deliver as promised, especially since the 787 program went to hell.

Let's face it, Boeing's odds of winning KC-X as well as CSAR-X at this point are awfully dim.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:08 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
What they really need is to wait on the KC-X and go directly with the KC-Y.

Mind you, there will be always something better just around the corner.

In 20 years, the 787 will be old tech too, and the A450 (just a fictitious name) will be about to enter service, offering 20% lower costs and far better payload-range performances...

Maybe the AF should wait with the KC-Y too and go straight to the KC-Z or the KC-Y(NG) then?

Problem is that in the mean time, they still need to fly those KC-135s...
Does the USAF really wants to see the backbone of their oversees military interventions become 80+ years old???

Would you feel comfortable if the USAF would be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with the same weapons of WWI?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Their new found wisdom on larger multi-purpose tankers.

Mind you: that wisdom was long with the USAF, it is just Boeing who's pretending they only learned recently about the multi-purpose aspect of the tanker deal! That's what you get when you're so convinced you'll win anyway, you don't even bother to read the specifications your customer is demanding....

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Give the 777, 340 and 748 a vigorous review, which provides a better multi-purpose aircraft than either the 330 or the 767.

The 777/A340 are suitable platforms for a future KC-10 replacement, NOT for the KC-135 replacement. Multi-purpose doesn't mean 'one fits all' you know?

The USAF will need to evaluate the 777/A340 based tankers if and when they want to replace their KC-10s, however, they are totally unsuitable to replace the KC-135s, due to their operational needs like field lenght, required apron space, cost etc.

A fleet of KC-777s alone would actually reduce the flexibility of the USAF tanker fleet over a mixed fleet of KC-30s and KC-10s combined! Not what you'd want from a single multi-purpose aircraft.

The point still stands: Boeing has nothing to match the KC-30 with and they know it, so iso convincing the USAF to buy their product like they would if they'd had anything really competitive, they now reverted to simply trying to prevent the USAF from ordering what they really want and need from the competitor.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 28):
The USAF will need to evaluate the 777/A340 based tankers if and when they want to replace their KC-10s, however, they are totally unsuitable to replace the KC-135s, due to their operational needs like field lenght

B772LR has a very similar field performance compared to A332. It's a moot point.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 28):
required apron space, cost etc.

You just made a case for KC-767

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 28):
Mind you: that wisdom was long with the USAF, it is just Boeing who's pretending they only learned recently about the multi-purpose aspect of the tanker deal! That's what you get when you're so convinced you'll win anyway, you don't even bother to read the specifications your customer is demanding....



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
As stated endlessly & ignored / denied as endlessly the requirements were clear & understood. One of the parties however choose to sail another direction maybe because they didn't like the implications of said requirements.

Bull. KC-767 is a multi purpose tanker that can carry pax, cargo and refuel with baskets. In fact KC 135 and KC 10 already has the capability of carrying cargo and pax (just check out the large CARGO door on the KC-135 and KC-10).

The only advantage of KC-30 over KC-767 is capacity. In fact Boeing fulfilled more of the "multi-role" requirements than the NG/EADS in the last RFP

Only SIZE that actually set KC-767 and KC-30 apart, which was addressed in GAO report.

Cheers,
PP
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:57 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 6):
This is how you get the best out of the process.

Ma

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 29):
B772LR has a very similar field performance compared to A332. It's a moot point.

Uhm, no. It disqualifies the 772LR if the 7000ft requirements are sustained.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 29):
The only advantage of KC-30 over KC-767 is capacity.

The only advantage of KC-767 over KC-135 is cargo/ passenger capacity and we are talking about replacing a 50 yr old tanker.

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

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:16 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Uhm, no. It disqualifies the 772LR if the 7000ft requirements are sustained.

Proof?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The only advantage of KC-767 over KC-135 is cargo/ passenger capacity and we are talking about replacing a 50 yr old tanker.

So? KC-30's advantage over KC-135 is also just capacity. KC135TopBoom has already shown why more fuel capacity is not necessary for airforce refuel.


Cheers,
PP
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:55 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
We might find out after a vigorous investigation of the AF-NG/Airbus relationship. Actually lets add McCain and his letters to that investigation and see where the chips fall.

I'm surprised the Obama campaign hasn't made hay out of McCain's ties to NG/EADS and how those ties have led to "American jobs being sent offshore". It would play well, especially in some blue-collar states that are currently in play for the election.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
I'm surprised the Obama campaign hasn't made hay out of McCain's ties to NG/EADS and how those ties have led to "American jobs being sent offshore". It would play well, especially in some blue-collar states that are currently in play for the election.

Even if your assumption is correct, right now Obama has bigger issues than this to worry about. He now is in danger of losing an election that 2 month ago was his.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:10 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
The only advantage of KC-767 over KC-135 is cargo/ passenger capacity and we are talking about replacing a 50 yr old tanker.

A 50 year old tanker that has how many hours and cycles and is still doing the job.

To be blunt, the number of tankers purchased is going to be about dollars available and the AF is dreaming if it thinks that the money will be there for everything they want. If the AF needs needs more than the bare original RFP minimums then they had better be prepared to buy a lot fewer of them and keep the KC-135's in very good condition.

Regardless of who wins the election DoD funds will be cut after Iraq. With McCain I have no doubt that the AF will go with NG/Airbus. With Obama, who knows. But with either candidate there will be cuts in the tanker program. If multi-purpose is that important then get the best they can. 767/330/777 - doesn't matter to me as long as the AF understands the limited funds that will be available.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:08 pm

 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:26 pm

And, from another site...

Quote:
No announcement has been scheduled, though Pentagon spokesman Chris Isleib said via email an event was possible for the afternoon of Sept. 10 and details will be available soon.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3715588&c=AME&s=AIR

If I were a betting man (and, actually, I am), I'd bet they are going to announce tomorrow that the RFP is postponed until after January 20, 2009.

The article you cited, TropicBird, had this quote:

Quote:
One source said Boeing is unlikely to get the full six months it seeks, but the companies could get four months -- two months longer than expected -- to work on new bids.

Whether or not Boeing can compile a completely new proposal in that amount of time is questionable, but they have no motivation to agree to it. All they have to do is sit out this RFP, which means the USAF can't move forward with it unless it's a sole-source (and we know they won't be able to sole-source it because of political considerations), and wait until January 20. In the meantime they can take their time putting together and refining their proposal for the KC-777. And the Airbus fans should take heart - this will also play to NG/EADS' advantage because it will allow them to prepare a new proposal based on the A330F.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10869
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:48 pm

It could be tricky if they get the deferment and lose again.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:30 am

More and more it looks like the AF would be wise to wait until the next administration before moving forward with the tanker.

Today's news brings us a half trillion dollar deficit for the year - only a trillion under what Bush said in his first 4 years - and that number is sure to go up.

With a rather serious deficit and a new administration being elected in less than 60 days the AF (and DoD) would be wise to spend this time looking at all capital procurement programs as well as the costs of rebuilding the military after Iraq. As much as the AF wants to ignore it, there will be a review of spending priorities within the DoD and the Atanker will be competing for dollars, regardless of which company (or political party) wins.

Bush is down to around 130 days left in office - I don't think that the AF has time to play games right now.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 20124
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:33 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
Whether or not Boeing can compile a completely new proposal in that amount of time is questionable

Not forgetting they've already had over 6 months since they lost the original RFP. It would look to be a poor decision, or possibly even arrogance, if they haven't already been working a new proposal during that time.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38):
More and more it looks like the AF would be wise to wait until the next administration before moving forward with the tanker.

Looks like that's precisely what happened as the USAF seems to have cancelled the latest RFP. Now we get many more months of continued speculation and debates on this board. Oh, boy!!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 20124
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:51 pm

With the news that the KC-X re-bid has been cancelled and a completely new process will be initiated after the US Presidential election, there seems little point in continuing with this thread.

If you wish to discuss the KC-X RFP cancellation, please use this thread:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/96178/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos