Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:43 pm



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 147):
Should the new specs become obviously to much geared to Boeings likes,the answer will be - stick it up...

And should the new specs become obviously too much geared to Airbus's likes, the answer from Boeing will be - stick it up . . .  Yeah sure
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 148):
Obama attacks McCain on Boeing deal, trade issues.

That's really daft of Obama to do. Alerting law enforcement officials to Boeing's and USAF's crimes in the 2003 tanker scandal was one of McCain's proudest moments. It is one reason why I am still considering voting for McCain.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:44 pm



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 147):
The latest-following "der Spiegel" ,are considerations by EADS to quite the bidding..

Here's the Reuter's link for the article in English: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLD32528920080913

Quote:
"We will only bid if we can be sure that we stand a fair chance," Spiegel quoted a senior EADS manager as saying, referring to the competition's future next year.

I think we can all stop with the "Boeing is crying like a baby" mantras. No company in their right mind is going to spend millions of their own money to bid on a process if they don't stand a chance of winning.

My only question is what would EADS fear with a new RFP that could slant it in Boeing's favor? I'm assuming the USAF is going to go with a bigger-is-better approach, and as many have pointed out, while the 777 is bigger it also presents some logistical problems of its own. As far as the political influences go, I believe NG/EADS has as many proponents as does Boeing. And if McCain wins the White House in November then they will have the most powerful man in the world in their corner.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16438
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:14 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 149):
Only problem with this is that the same GAO who advised the US Air Force to modify the original RFP to allow NG to compete is also the body who upheld Boeing's protest, why are we blaming Boeing for the GAO ruling against the Air Force, are we saying that Boeing should just accept the loss of a huge contract based on a faulty RFP and go off into the night?

I am not "blaming" any party. Any vendor has every right to protest legitimate points of the process. What I don't like is what I see to be an abuse of the protest process.

My gripe with Boeing's protest, from an outside observers point of view, they seemed to try every angle under the RFP to complain about, the allegedly threw over 110 complaints to the GAO. If they had won, I don't think they would have found any errors in the selection process. Likewise I am sure that the USAF would have made mistakes when dealing with NG. But the mistakes made in my view were all "technical" ones, stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, the KC-30 was always more capable than the KC-767AT.

I cannot accept that Boeing were totally unsure of the USAF stance on different aspects of the RFP they protested about until after the decision was made. Boeing should have protested prior to the submission of its initial proposal, or, at the latest, prior to the submission of its Final Proposal Revisions, and within 10 days after it learned how the USAF was evaluating criteria.

I cannot accept that posters on a.net had a better grasp of the RFP contents than the people at Boeing. I cannot accept that when Boeing was publicly thinking about offering a 777 based tanker, they did not see the additional capability that that frame would have brought to the RFP. Even the newspapers in Seattle summed the differences up in a nice little graphics.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/business/links/tanker26.gif

See also http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/286578_air27.html

To me it seems like they were "storing up" points to protest about, which to me seems like an abuse of the process.

All through the RFP process I maintained that in my view the KC-30 is a more capable tanker than the KC-767, capabilities were assessable under the RFP. Capability was also the point NG was driving home with their PR. Boeing has always maintained in the PR that the KC-767 was "right sized", but size was not assessable under the RFP. Boeing was even considering at one stage a 777 bid. It was this public contrast between the two vendors that had me thinking Boeing had totally missed the point of the RFP, why continue to harp on about the size, when no RFP metric assessed size ?

NG put their best foot forward, they provided the USAF with their most capable airframe under the RFP, the A310 based tanker would have also exceeded the RFP requirements, but provides less capability than the KC-30 or KC-767.



Given the minor changes the USAF made in the latest RFP to comply with the GAO protest findings, to me it seems that the vast majority of the protest was made on "technical" rather than "fundamental" flaws with the RFP process.

While Boeing had every right to protest these "technical" shortcomings in the RFP process, Boeing, and even their strongest cheerleeders on a.net have recognized that the 767-200LRF based tanker is not as capable as the KC-30 (like NG has been saying for ages, even with that dreaded spider chart), they have come out and basically said they would win against the KC-30 using the KC767AT. They now wanted more time to bid with a more capable aircraft.

The protest avenue with the GAO was not designed for that, I think that is what people are blaming Boeing for. Boeing did not need more time to submit a response to the draft changes made after the GAO protest, the USAF already found the KC-767AT met all the mandatory requirements to their satisfaction. They would have lost out as the KC-767AT was less capable, and provided less value for money to the USAF.

Boeing should have presented their best candidate aircraft from day 1, their most competitive bid. It now appears that Boeing did not submit their most competitive aircraft, with any competition, when you don't put your best foot forward, you got to accept the possibility that you may not come out as the winner.

Sure complain to the umpire when the process is flawed, but don't complain or "invent" situations when you did not put your best candidate forward in a competitive selection process.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:33 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 153):
My only question is what would EADS fear with a new RFP that could slant it in Boeing's favor? I'm assuming the USAF is going to go with a bigger-is-better approach, and as many have pointed out, while the 777 is bigger it also presents some logistical problems of its own. As far as the political influences go, I believe NG/EADS has as many proponents as does Boeing. And if McCain wins the White House in November then they will have the most powerful man in the world in their corner.

A couple of comments.

NG (through no issues on their part) could not complete the deal when they had the clear winner, so how can they expect to win when the specifications will be Boeing driven (by Congress if not the DoD)? Either a -400 or a 74 derivative will match any Airbus airplane classed as "medium" in the Rand study close enough to win the award.

There is a fallacy in the assumption that McCain favors NG. There is nothing in his record to support this. What people are assuming to be in favor of NG is in fact promoting competition. He exposed the lease scandal which pissed Boeing off, and then he insisted there be competition for the RFP. If NG would have pulled out, he would have shut down the process.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:17 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
Boeing was even considering at one stage a 777 bid. It was this public contrast between the two vendors that had me thinking Boeing had totally missed the point of the RFP, why continue to harp on about the size, when no RFP metric assessed size ?

This is a good point; then again, the A340-500 HGW may also be a viable "uber-tanker." Both it and the 777 are fantastically capable aircraft; it depends on specifics to decide which is the better warfighter. Or maybe they are both too large given we already have the KC-10.


I agree with your insinuations that Boeing knew exactly the lay of the land but (if I may insert words into your mouth) they were relying on political metrics rather than aeronautical to win the contract. Of course Boeing knew the 777 is a heavier airplane that can carry more fuel, but they believed their political might was such that the USAF would order the 767 because that was most convenient for Boeing, and "adequately" served the USAF's needs. This was clearly a gamble that was so elemental that all staff at Boeing woud have been keenly aware (and not necessarily in agreement) with the strategy. There must have been some wild fights inside Boeing about this. They came out looking like fools.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:58 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
What I don't like is what I see to be an abuse of the protest process.

A valid concern, but given that this was Boeing's first protest in over 30 years I think it says a lot about Boeing's belief that their concerns were legitimate. Boeing had lost other competitions in the past, some far more lucrative than this one (e.g., F-35) and they did not appeal.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
To me it seems like they were "storing up" points to protest about, which to me seems like an abuse of the process.

They may have, but I also have no doubts NG/EADS also had stored up points for appeal in the event they lost. It is only prudent to do so and to do otherwise would reflect a bit of naivete. No one - NO ONE - comes to such a lucrative competition, spends millions to participate, and expects to walk away without question in the event they lose.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 155):
There is a fallacy in the assumption that McCain favors NG.

I don't know if he favors NG/EADS over Boeing, but what he does and will do is ensure both have equal footing. That alone should give NG and EADS a lot of solace. But he may actually disfavor Boeing to a certain extent in that the company played a very dirty hand in the recent past.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:24 pm

It appears EADS is now denying the report in Der Spiegel.

Quote:
EADS responded it was not giving up on the competition and repeated the thrust of a statement it had issued last week.

"We are carefully assessing the situation with Northrop Grumman and we remain steadfastly behind our partner," a group spokesman said.

"We are not giving up and we remain convinced we have the best plane."

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSLD39386320080913
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16438
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:38 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 156):
This is a good point; then again, the A340-500 HGW may also be a viable "uber-tanker." Both it and the 777 are fantastically capable aircraft; it depends on specifics to decide which is the better warfighter. Or maybe they are both too large given we already have the KC-10.

I doubt the A340-500 or 777 will get a look in, they would add about 9 billion to the purchase price alone, not to mention the development and life cycle costs.

The KC-30 was being pitched to the USAF with a lower purchase price, and lower development cost than the KC-767AT, but had higher life cycle costs. The USAF could then evaluate to see if the extra capability was worth it, considering all intensive purposes the two frames cost the same to buy.

Any frame Boeing offers above the 767-200LRF one would think would have higher purchase price, higher development cost, and higher life costs than the KC-767AT.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 157):
A valid concern, but given that this was Boeing's first protest in over 30 years I think it says a lot about Boeing's belief that their concerns were legitimate.

Yeah I remember reading something like that, I think there was a qualification to the statement ? All I recall Boeing saying was "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously."

from http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1260.shtml

"Air Force leaders, on the other hand, believe that Boeing is willfully mis-stating the facts in a bid to obscure the inferior performance of the plane it proposed. A marathon session of Air Force acquisition experts two weeks ago concluded that none of the 200 issues raised by Boeing in its complaint to GAO was likely to be upheld, and that whatever minor problems the accountability office might uncover would be far from sufficient to overturn a competitive outcome the service says was not close. Beyond the merits of Boeing's case, Air Force officials are insulted by the tone of the company's public statements, which have used phrases such as "deeply flawed" and "severely prejudiced" to describe the tanker selection process.

The deterioration of Boeing's relationship with its biggest government customer hit a new low last week, when Air Force insiders began hinting darkly that the company had encouraged Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to question the ethics of the service's chief of staff in a letter concerning an unrelated contracting matter. The notion that Boeing would do such a thing seems exceedingly unlikely, since the chief was widely believed to favor Boeing's tanker bid and the company's relationship with McCaskill is lukewarm at best (even though its defense unit is headquartered in her state). But the tone of Boeing's tanker campaign has led at least some service officials to believe the worst about the company, a feeling that is spreading far beyond tankers. For instance, the service has probably delayed announcing award of the GPS III satellite contract in part because it fears another Boeing protest. "

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 158):
It appears EADS is now denying the report in Der Spiegel.

Did EADS ever say they would ?

I doubt the original article, as EADS did not make a bid. That sort of statement would have to come from NG.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:34 pm

Just want to first say that there's no way to keep score on such things, IMHO.

I was trying to point out that while both sides preech fairness, both sides also indulge in underhanded behavior.

Quoting GDB (Reply 129):
Well Revelation, Gallileo could be seen as part of a general ESA ramping up of space activities, beyond comsats etc, which also includes the Jules Verne craft at the ISS, probes orbiting Mars and Venus too.

Can be, but to me it fits the standard you were describing: "irrationality cloaked in an element of Xenophobia".


Quoting GDB (Reply 129):
A better example might be the engine on the A400M.

I suppose, yes.

Quoting GDB (Reply 129):
But, the US has a history of using leverage on their components on other's aircraft to prevent exports, the Swedes found that when trying to sell the Viggen in the 70's, (a JT8D based engine), preventing selling civil BAe-146's to Iran to give two examples.

And BAe pays "consulting fees" to Saudi operatives. Again, no good way to keep score on all this dirt.

Quoting GDB (Reply 129):
What rankles is when US politicians use spurious claims, including against Allies fighting alongside the US, but Israel, who HAS spied and sold to China, are beyond reproach it seems, at least from them.

Yep, Pollard got a free pass, in my book.

Quoting GDB (Reply 129):
But, when is it a new thing when requirements grow in the course of a procurement?

Then maybe issue a new draft of that RFP describing that growth? The procurement rules require that the USAF be accountable for how they make their decisions.

The process is far from perfect. The B-17 lost it's contract to Douglas when its prototype crashed, but somehow the government found funds to buy them anyway. Lockheed wasn't even asked to bid for the secret project that became the F-117, even though they had built the stealthiest plane ever built so far, the SR-71. Maybe this time the USAF will find some backdoor like "commercial procurement" to get the A330 in the door too, if they want it bad enough.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 142):
Why they couldn't do it to begin with is beyond me. Their #1 goal is to fight wars. Their #2 goal is to get the equipment they need to perform #1. Simple.

 checkmark 

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 143):
Image how the Italians and Japanese would feel having bought their 767 tankers only to have Boeing move to another platform. Those aircraft would then (and now may likely) become white elephants.

The Japanese already own the only 767-based AWACS platforms in the world.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 145):
Extra credits were given for exceeding KPP thresholds, but not KPP objectives. When the USAF amended the RFP after the GAO protest, all they did was put the fuel offload vs range under the KPP threshold and deleted the KPP objective.

The sentence regarding no extra credit given for exceeding objectives remained in the new draft, as they moved the requirement from a objective to a threshold.

The losse of a nayle, the losse of an army. The want of a nayle looseth the shooe, the losse of shooe troubles the horse, the horse indangereth the rider, the rider breaking his ranke molests the company, so farre as to hazard the whole Army.

It does sound like this error was a "brain fart", but again, USAF should have known it was going into a hornet's nest when they picked the A330, and should have crossed the t's and dotted the i's.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
My gripe with Boeing's protest, from an outside observers point of view, they seemed to try every angle under the RFP to complain about, the allegedly threw over 110 complaints to the GAO.

Abuse, nonsense. The USAF has to write correct RFPs. The law doesn't limit the number of protests. But as you point out, Boeing has to be wary of pissing off the USAF by filing meaningless protests, and in this regard, I can imagine that 110 points would really piss off the Air Force.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 154):
I cannot accept that Boeing were totally unsure of the USAF stance on different aspects of the RFP they protested about until after the decision was made. Boeing should have protested prior to the submission of its initial proposal, or, at the latest, prior to the submission of its Final Proposal Revisions, and within 10 days after it learned how the USAF was evaluating criteria.

I guess we'll never know if not doing this was deliberate or not. Given how haughty some people feel Boeing is, maybe they just thought they had it in the bag, so why bother making the correction?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 159):
I doubt the original article, as EADS did not make a bid. That sort of statement would have to come from NG.

Yes, but NG doesn't have much to offer without EADS, does it? Clearly if EADS decides it is not worth their time to make a bid in the next competition, NG will have to find a new partner (where?) or pull out.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:29 pm

Revelation, BAE has not found to have acted improperly with the Saudi's despite an extensive investigation and a long media running media campaign, the latter, politically motivated, in the sense of being against the UK having a defence industry at all, let alone selling abroad, will not accept this however.

But best not to imply improper/illegal behavior in others, when considering the history of Boeing and USAF 767 tankers.

I also expect the USAF cast an eye over the current 767 tanker programmes for customers, or rather the long delays to them.
These also being apparently straightforward 767-200 based machines, not the more hybrid version proposed for the USAF.

Some of the issues with these, were ones that were seen as potentially problematic when the MoD evaluated ex BA 767's with A330's, (BAE were involved in both).
This demolished Boeing's PR about it's more proven bid, compared to the 'untried' A330, rather it evens things out in this respect.

Interesting you think it's OK for Israel to sell sensitive military technology to China, which of course had been extensively funded by tax $!
China will not hesitate to sell the fruits of this, (especially from the Lavi fighter), to nations actually or potentially hostile to the US.

While some US politicians be-rate those who have not done this, though they imply they might, who have service personnel fighting (and dying), alongside the US, unlike Israel.
The sense of bad faith here goes beyond this really rather farcical tanker procurement.

My own feeling about recent aerospace procurements, that have been controversial, is that in an environment where replacements for current assets will be procured in smaller numbers, will not replace one for one, they are just going to go with the most capable option. To try and offset the numerical differences as much as possible.
As in CSAR, as in the VVIP Helicopters, as in the tankers. Arguably in the JSF too, (X-32 seemed to be further away, even as a tech demonstrator, from meeting the requirements, it was going to need a redesigned wing for a start).

I was most surprised that the USAF did pick the A330, not for any technical reasons, but for the political shit-storm it would unleash.
Really, there has to be a look at this whole objecting to winners, whoever does it.
Maybe raise the bar, that is they have to prove actual corruption and other serious, as in criminal, activities. Actually illegal rather than masses of legalese.
Because the delays they cause are serious, I understand the new CSAR choppers are very much needed, to give one example.

[Edited 2008-09-13 16:40:50]
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:22 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 152):
That's really daft of Obama to do. Alerting law enforcement officials to Boeing's and USAF's crimes in the 2003 tanker scandal was one of McCain's proudest moments. It is one reason why I am still considering voting for McCain.

One of Obama's advisers on defense issues is Rudy de Leon, Boeing's former VP of Government Affairs in DC and a key figure in the tanker scandal. How ironic. Think anybody in the media will notice?

From US News World Report titled "War Profiteering" - May 2002

Since 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Boeing's executives and political action committees have given Democrats $1.9 million and Republicans $2.6 million. By late September, Rudy de Leon , Boeing's chief lobbyist and a former deputy secretary of defense, met with Stevens.

An acknowledged master of the arcane appropriations process, Stevens quickly breathed new life into Boeing's proposal for the Air Force to acquire a new fleet of 767s. The senator called Air Force officers and told them he wanted the service to explore "creative funding" to acquire new Boeing planes to replace the aging KC-135 tanker refueling fleet, according to a congressional defense aide. Stevens told Air Force officials what he had in mind was a lease. "It was my idea to start replacing the fleet," Stevens says. "And my idea to use the leasing."


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/020513/archive_020747_3.htm


From DOD Buzz August 2008 titled "Obama's Defense Team and Its Priorities" . Notice Mr. de Leon's connection with Boeing is not mentioned.

I hear from other sources that there is a committee dealing with defense industry issues. I believe Douglass is a member of that, along with Paul Kaminski, former undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and technology under Clinton, and William Perry, deputy Defense Secretary under Clinton. Kaminski and Perry were partners in an investment firm for years before Perry went to Pentagon. Lester Lyles, an African-American Air Force general who led the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the late 1990s and retired in 2003 as commander of Air Force Materiel Command, is also part of this group. And Rudy deLeon former deputy secretary of Defense under Clinton who is now senior vice president of national security and international policy at the progressive Center for American Progress.


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/08/29/ob...s-defense-team-and-its-priorities/

[Edited 2008-09-13 17:25:49]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:35 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 162):
Revelation, BAE has not found to have acted improperly with the Saudi's despite an extensive investigation and a long media running media campaign, the latter, politically motivated, in the sense of being against the UK having a defence industry at all, let alone selling abroad, will not accept this however.

But best not to imply improper/illegal behavior in others, when considering the history of Boeing and USAF 767 tankers.

So, maybe I'm being dense here, but is your point that the UK is pure as the driven snow, and the US is lower than whale dung? Or what exactly is your point?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 150):
NoBama's an idiot trying to spin the KC-X into a political topic

Ah, your usual clear-headed retort, sigh...

Did you read the article?

Why not try and refute a few of the points it's making, like:

Quote:
"While it was right for the Pentagon to cancel competition ... for the next generation of tankers, it was wrong for John McCain to reward two of the Washington lobbyists who worked against Boeing with jobs on his campaign," Obama told a conference of machinists and aerospace workers.

McCain has not commented on the cancellation of the tanker contest and his representatives have not responded to repeated questions about the matter.

Several former EADS lobbyists later worked on McCain's campaign. Tom Loeffler, the head of a lobbying firm called The Loeffler Group, left the campaign in May after it imposed new rules curbing the involvement of lobbyists.

 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:54 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 162):
BAE has not found to have acted improperly with the Saudi's despite an extensive investigation

Baloney, the UK government capitulated to Saudi demands that they drop the probe long before it was completed. We will never know if there was no wrongdoing but we do know that there has been a cover up. It's shameful that the UK sold itself to Saudi Arabia over some fighter. That just goes to show that BAE and Rolls Royce have far more influence over the UK government than Boeing, NG or Lockheed.

Quoting GDB (Reply 162):
in the sense of being against the UK having a defence industry at all, let alone selling abroad,

The Typhoon is built by a consortium of nations. The French are the only European nation that can claim that they have the capability to indigenously design and build a modern fighter. This fraud probe/Typhoon does far more harm to the UK than benefits it. But that aside why should the US be expected to buy a European tanker when European nations clearly (witness Typhoon, A400, Galileo and a host of other procurement boondoggles) favor building and buying domestically produced equipment wherever possible.

Quoting GDB (Reply 162):
But best not to imply improper/illegal behavior in others,

Yeah, you are right, the entire UK government was involved at BAE's behest. When Boeing got out of line people went to jail. When BAE got out of line they swept it under the rug. Yup, best not imply improper behavior mate.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7456
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:11 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 165):
Baloney, the UK government capitulated to Saudi demands



Quoting Alien (Reply 165):
That just goes to show that BAE and Rolls Royce have far more influence over the UK government

Make your mind up.......

Quoting Revelation (Reply 160):
And BAe pays "consulting fees" to Saudi operatives

I'd love to know how a business could expect to execute a programme of that complexity without some local expertise.....  scratchchin 

Rgds
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:51 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 164):
So, maybe I'm being dense here, but is your point that the UK is pure as the driven snow, and the US is lower than whale dung? Or what exactly is your point?

Not at all, I'm only reacting to, from some US politicians and commentators, the self righteousness, the outright lies, the sheer hyprocracy.
I'd also say that criticising the links between BAE and Saudi is also a bit rich considering the longstanding links between the House of Saud and the Bush family.
At least up to 2001 anyway.

No one is as pure as the driven snow , but the losers in the case of the BAE-Saudi Typhoon deal, was probably France and the Rafale, rather than the US.

The one of the reasons BAe, as it was then, won the major Saudi deal in 1985, (which these investigations have been about-NOT the recent Typhoon deal), which probably made more possible this Typhoon deal, was objections to some deals between the US and Saudi, from US politicians who seem to primarily serve the interests of another Mid East nation, y'know, the one who spies on the US and gives military tech to China!

So yes, I think it is beyond ironic that Boeing's stooges in the US, drop dark hints about security implications of buying, to quote them, a 'French' aircraft.
Quite honestly, trying to smear an ally in this way, who I repeat are actually fighting alongside the US, has about as much credence as the '9/11 was done by the US govt' wack-jobs.

Alien, yet again you do not appear to know what your on about, I suggest that some kind of irrational hate, or some sort of resentment, is not conducive to seeing things clearly.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 167):

So yes, I think it is beyond ironic that Boeing's stooges in the US, drop dark hints about security implications of buying, to quote them, a 'French' aircraft.

Agreed 100%. There are a bunch of ex-frat boys who run our security programs on the corporate / lobbyist side. I am connected to some of them. Lots of them use cocaine and have nothing but contempt for the American people... it's just a way to make money based on your connections, a little like the mafia.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:49 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 159):
"Air Force leaders, on the other hand, believe that Boeing is willfully mis-stating the facts in a bid to obscure the inferior performance of the plane it proposed.

Be careful what you quote. This is the same Air Force that also said the RFP was the most transparent and fair competition ever held. And we know where that belief got them.  Wink
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10991
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:56 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 159):
"Air Force leaders, on the other hand, believe that Boeing is willfully mis-stating the facts in a bid to obscure the inferior performance of the plane it proposed.

Politics all over again, how can a a/c be inferior when it exceeds the RFP set up by the Air Force, the B-767 whichever version exceeds the perfprmance specs of the KC-135. I thought that is what they were competing against, not each other.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:33 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 168):
Agreed 100%. There are a bunch of ex-frat boys who run our security programs on the corporate / lobbyist side. I am connected to some of them. Lots of them use cocaine and have nothing but contempt for the American people... it's just a way to make money based on your connections, a little like the mafia.

I would agree with that sentiment. From my personal experiences, a lot of people in DC ( in media, politicians and lobbyists) are indeed contemptuous of their fellow Americans and it shows in their ignorance and indifference to what is and has been going on. They think they know whats best for us.

In my opinion, Boeing's current leaders have absolutely no care for whats best for the warfighter and taxpayer on the KC-X program which has been roundly discussed here. Its all about the price of their stock (money) and power. This is a glaring example of where the free market and capitalism collides with national security.

Both presidential candidates say they will fix this. I guess we will know in a year or two but I am doubtful as long as we have the type of people described above involved.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:00 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 171):
Both presidential candidates say they will fix this. I guess we will know in a year or two but I am doubtful as long as we have the type of people described above involved.

Don't forget to throw the USAF leadership under the same bus while you're at it. Had the GAO not ruled in Boeing's favor back in June and upheld the USAF's decision, NG and EADS would be building their new FAL at this very moment in Mobile and we'd all be talking about the new KC-45 tanker (on threads that would total, at most, 30 posts by A.Net members). There's plenty of blame to go around, but in my opinion you have to start at the source of this fiasco and that source is the USAF's ineptitude in running a fair and transparent procurement program. Had they done so, whatever "sleeze" Boeing brought to the table would have been apparent for all to see. But because of the USAF's ineptitude, it only makes Boeing appear to a lot of people as the victim.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:27 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 171):
In my opinion, Boeing's current leaders have absolutely no care for whats best for the warfighter and taxpayer on the KC-X program which has been roundly discussed here. Its all about the price of their stock (money) and power.



You might want to add that NG/EADS's current leaders have absolutely no care for whats best for the warfighter and taxpayer on the KC-X program which has been roundly discussed here. Its all about the price of their stock (money) and power.

[Edited 2008-09-14 17:40:06]
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:21 am



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 173):
You might want to add that NG/EADS's current leaders have absolutely no care for whats best for the warfighter and taxpayer on the KC-X program which has been roundly discussed here. Its all about the price of their stock (money) and power.

Maybe so - but I have seen more evidence of Boeing's arrogance dating back to before the first tanker scandal.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 172):
But because of the USAF's ineptitude, it only makes Boeing appear to a lot of people as the victim.

You are dead on.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:25 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 167):
Alien, yet again you do not appear to know what your on about, I suggest that some kind of irrational hate, or some sort of resentment, is not conducive to seeing things clearly.

What part did I get wrong GDB? The UK government was pressured into dropping the probe by Saudi Arabia. Everything else you bring up is nothing more than a red herring. We are talking about how one nation has capitulated to another in pursuit of money.

Quoting GDB (Reply 167):
So yes, I think it is beyond ironic that Boeing's stooges in the US, drop dark hints about security implications of buying, to quote them, a 'French' aircraft.

It's a foreign aircraft. Is that good enough for you. In fact forget the French. If the British would sell out their national sovereignty over a few Typhoons one has to really wonder how easy they would sell out another country.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 171):
In my opinion, Boeing's current leaders have absolutely no care for whats best for the warfighter and taxpayer on the KC-X program

No they don't but neither does NG and certainly EADS only wants to get it's foot in the door. So what's your point?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16438
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:33 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 169):
This is the same Air Force that also said the RFP was the most transparent and fair competition ever held. And we know where that belief got them.

I have no evidence to suggest that it was not, considering the size of the RFP documents, thousands of pages, over 37 files, the number of issues identified I think were trivial.

I am aware of no other program that combined peer review from other services, the GAO, and industry consultants during the RFP phase.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 170):

Politics all over again, how can a a/c be inferior when it exceeds the RFP set up by the Air Force, the B-767 whichever version exceeds the perfprmance specs of the KC-135. I thought that is what they were competing against, not each other.

It was a competitive bid process, the vendors were competing against each other.



The KC-135 has a fair bit more range than a 767, compared the KC-30, it field performance is not as good. Because the KC-30 did not have all of its lower cargo deck full of fuel tanks like the KC-767, it could actually meet other threshold requirement which the KC-767 partially met, but the KC-30 could do more, e.g. passenger and aeromedical capacity. (for example, pax carriage had specified an amount of luggage per pax, because the KC-30 could put this baggage under floor, it could then have available the whole main deck for pax carriage, which was the threshold requirement. The KC-767 has to use some of the main deck for the luggage)

Also form a performance point of view, the KC-767AT refueling efficiency was not as good as the KC-30 (primary mission), and we now know from recent news posted on here that the Italian KC-767 with wing pods installed is causing higher than anticipated cockpit noise levels, which is indicative that they have not sorted out the airflow problems around the pod/mount/wing that was limiting its maximum speed in the past.

Quoting Alien (Reply 175):
EADS only wants to get it's foot in the door

It then follows Boeings' only motivation could be to prevent NG/EADS getting its foot in the door.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:28 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 165):
But that aside why should the US be expected to buy a European tanker when European nations clearly (witness Typhoon, A400, Galileo and a host of other procurement boondoggles) favor building and buying domestically produced equipment wherever possible.

Because without the European tanker in the game, the US vendor could charge pretty much what they want to charge. At least with the EU tanker around, they'll low-ball the bid up front, then get it back via cost overruns later Sad

Quoting Alien (Reply 165):
When Boeing got out of line people went to jail. When BAE got out of line they swept it under the rug. Yup, best not imply improper behavior mate.

 checkmark 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 166):

I'd love to know how a business could expect to execute a programme of that complexity without some local expertise.....

It's a matter of scale. Plenty of money there for some local expertise and some bakshish as well...

Quoting GDB (Reply 167):
Not at all, I'm only reacting to, from some US politicians and commentators, the self righteousness, the outright lies, the sheer hyprocracy.

I hope everyone involved admits everyone does it, to the degree they can get away with it.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:03 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 176):
I have no evidence to suggest that it was not

Huh? Come again, please.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:45 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 179):
Spend a few extra bucks domestically to encourage another American based manufacturer to design and build a large long range transport.

Same reply as on the other thread - the time and economic hurdles are to high. Do you have any idea how much it costs to design and build an airplane from scratch (even assuming you could find sufficient new staff)? No one is going to do that when the competition would escape 99% of those costs.

Boeing has this market locked up. Airbus is the only company that could compete with Boeing on any large transport project, and it is clear that Congress is willing to ignore trade agreements they approved in order to preserve Boeing's position.

The issue with sole source is not price per se, but what you are getting for the price.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:47 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 179):
Spend a few extra bucks domestically to encourage another American based manufacturer to design and build a large long range transport. How do you think Airbus got it's start way back in the day?

Seems we are doing this for F-22, F-35 et al. Do we need to do this for every program? Wouldn't tankers be a good area for participation from other countries?

Hey, if Boeing can build a tanker that gets the job done with lower overall costs, I'm all for it. And if the USAF writes an RFP that assigns costs fairly for the value-add provided by the A330, I'm all for that too. As mentioned earlier, Boeing may non-bid such an RFP, but so be it.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:20 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 175):
No they don't but neither does NG and certainly EADS only wants to get it's foot in the door. So what's your point?

After all that has transpired in this program with people going to prison and promises of a fair and transparent process -- not getting the point IS the problem.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:27 pm

Alien, yes the Saudi's did exert pressure, and what a political shit-storm it created!
(Making the small army of journo's looking into this, even more determined to dig!)
However, it was already leaked that the allegations did not stand up, as bit by bit, various aspects of them fell by the wayside.
Later this was confirmed anyway.

There is history here, the Saudi's, as you many know, get awfully het up about this sort of thing, that is, a free press in the West reporting on them, warts and all, something they are not used to domestically.
In 1980, a UK TV channel screened a documentary, Death Of A Princess , about the execution of a young Royal family member, for some kind of minor adultery or something.
(Naturally the male party in this was not executed).
This doc inevitably cast a light on other unsavory aspects of this vast array of Saudi elite.
The Saudi's made threats, made a lot of diplomatic noise, made threats of economic reprisals.
But the doc was still screened and it all blew over in time.

You may call this a red herring, it is however setting things in a proper context, we've been here before.
The Saudi's just did not like being investigated, in 1980 or 2006, as it turned out for the latter one, they need not have been so concerned, but it's the very principal of being investigated that so angers them.

Back on topic, whatever is picked, what's any IOC of a new tanker likely to be?
A decade or so away? Assuming one is even selected.

To the point of EADS also looking after the bottom line, true, but they do not wrap themselves in a Stars And Stripes, (presumably one made in China!)
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:30 pm

Well, looks like we might all be in for a long period of endless - and endlessly long - discussions on the tanker wars:

Quote:
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said a new contract for aerial refueling aircraft could be awarded within 8 to 12 months, but depending on how the new administration decides to proceed, it could up to 36 to 48 months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN1549772120080915

Personally, I think it will be later rather than sooner before we see the next RFP and award.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:30 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 182):
Well, looks like we might all be in for a long period of endless - and endlessly long - discussions on the tanker wars:

Quote:
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said a new contract for aerial refueling aircraft could be awarded within 8 to 12 months, but depending on how the new administration decides to proceed, it could up to 36 to 48 months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN1549772120080915

Personally, I think it will be later rather than sooner before we see the next RFP and award.

I wasn't able to edit this post so I'll just add it here. Among other things the USAF has indicated and which were reported in this article is the possibility of starting from scratch with a new analysis of requirements or just moving forward with a modification to the existing RFP. Whatever the case, the USAF's focus will be on appeal-proofing the next round.

The reason I said I believe it will be later rather than sooner for the next round is because the current environment and RFP is too far politically charged. In order to circumvent the political pressures I believe the USAF will start fresh with a new analysis of requirements so that whatever the final RFP, no one will be able to say its final form was influenced by anyone and that it was driven purely from a "needs" standpoint.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26991
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:49 pm

Thanks for the link.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 183):
I wasn't able to edit this post so I'll just add it here. Among other things the USAF has indicated and which were reported in this article is the possibility of starting from scratch with a new analysis of requirements or just moving forward with a modification to the existing RFP. Whatever the case, the USAF's focus will be on appeal-proofing the next round.

And congress-proofing. I'm sure whatever happens, USAF will have a good "sense of Congress" before they announce a winner.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 183):
The reason I said I believe it will be later rather than sooner for the next round is because the current environment and RFP is too far politically charged. In order to circumvent the political pressures I believe the USAF will start fresh with a new analysis of requirements so that whatever the final RFP, no one will be able to say its final form was influenced by anyone and that it was driven purely from a "needs" standpoint.

 checkmark 

Stop the madness! Re-engine the KC-135Es, lease a few cargo-haulers, and be done with it!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16438
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:25 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 177):
Huh? Come again, please.

Can you think of another large RFP that was so open ?

The public knew so much about the workings of this RFP, the FBO site had most of the minutes from each meeting published, all the RFP documents were also available for the public (apart from classified sections). Each bidder knew so much about the process through ongoing updates with the USAF (which came back to bite the USAF). The USAF went to long lengths to get peer review f the process from other services, and the GAO.

That was above an beyond what the had to do, and clearly demonstrates their intent to have this competition fair and open.

The GAO decision is very negative towards some aspects of the process, but that is what the report is for. We do not see 100 odd points that the GAO dismissed (nor has Boeing made public their full list of complaints), nor do we see the GAO indicate what the USAF got right, that is not their role. All we have is the thousands of pages which comprised the RFP, and compare that to what they picked up on, it formed a very minor part.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:38 pm

USAF spent over $116 million on this latest aborted procurement.


Air Force Magazine Daily Report
Tuesday September 16, 2008

What Starting Over Costs: The Air Force spent $116.6 million to run the KC-X competition terminated last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the service reported in response to a query. Presumably, it will cost about as much to re-run the competition from scratch, although USAF and Pentagon officials have said they would hope to salvage as much as possible from the abandoned KC-X effort. That might be wishful thinking, though. If indeed the Air Force next time will state a more definitive need for a large aircraft, Boeing officials have said they would likely propose either a significantly stretched version of the company%u2019s 767 or a variant of its 777 jumbo, either of which would be a radical departure from the KC-767 they originally offered.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
Can you think of another large RFP that was so open ?

I don't know. I'm not in the business of reviewing government RFPs. But if you want me to agree with you that this was the most open RFP ever, well, okay; I'll agree with you.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
That was above an beyond what the had to do, and clearly demonstrates their intent to have this competition fair and open.

Intentions alone can never be the basis of good judgment.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
All we have is the thousands of pages which comprised the RFP, and compare that to what they picked up on, it formed a very minor part.

It might have formed a very minor part, but that doesn't diminish their importance regardless of how few there might have been. America's Space Shuttle has a couple of million different parts in it, yet it only took one to destroy each ship that was lost. Minor failure ratio? Yes. Negligible results? No way.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:00 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 175):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 169):
This is the same Air Force that also said the RFP was the most transparent and fair competition ever held. And we know where that belief got them.

I have no evidence to suggest that it was not, considering the size of the RFP documents, thousands of pages, over 37 files, the number of issues identified I think were trivial.

How can you make such such a blatantly false statement when the GAO and the DOD both clearly said, and wrote otherwise. The evidence has presented clearly and succinctly several times. Just because you chose to ignore it for reasons only known to you does not mean that the evidence is not overwhelmingly there that this RFP process was seriously flawed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 176):
Because without the European tanker in the game, the US vendor could charge pretty much what they want to charge. At least with the EU tanker around, they'll low-ball the bid up front, then get it back via cost overruns later Sad

Spend a few extra bucks domestically to encourage another American based manufacturer to design and build a large long range transport. How do you think Airbus got it's start way back in the day?

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 178):
Same reply as on the other thread - the time and economic hurdles are to high. Do you have any idea how much it costs to design and build an airplane from scratch (even assuming you could find sufficient new staff)? No one is going to do that when the competition would escape 99% of those costs.

Nonsense, it would cost several billion dollars and take two or three years. Level the playing field by inviting LM, NG, Boeing and any other domestic aircraft manufacturer to submit a proposal for a new long range transport. The top two proposals get money to build a prototype for a fly off. It used to be done all the time (lightweight fighter and A-X come to mind) and there is no reason why it should not be done now. It would be money well spent by the government.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 179):
Wouldn't tankers be a good area for participation from other countries?

Just like off shoring software development is a good idea too. Where do you want to stop?

Quoting GDB (Reply 181):
However, it was already leaked that the allegations did not stand up, as bit by bit, various aspects of them fell by the wayside.

Wrong, we will never know if the allegations stood up or not. In fact the Saudis got particularly adamant when the investigation turned on looking into payments made by BAE to the Saudi royal family. Lest you think this is some issue dug up by the press or the opposition, the OECD last year found serious problems with the UK government dropping the investigation. Specifically the OECD said "that it has serious concerns as to whether the decision was consistent with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention".

Yeah, it really sounds like all the charges dropped by the wayside. Good old Tony Blair got a call from BAE and they said drop the charges or we don;t do business with Saudi Arabia. Nothing like a little blackmail to make the charges go away.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusin...ews/publish/article_10008736.shtml

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 180):
To the point of EADS also looking after the bottom line, true, but they do not wrap themselves in a Stars And Stripes, (presumably one made in China!)

No, they just run to the governments of England, Germany France and Spain with their hand out. Just like the Saudis they know that the UK government at least can be blackmailed for "commercial interests".

Quoting Revelation (Reply 184):
Stop the madness! Re-engine the KC-135Es, lease a few cargo-haulers, and be done with it!

That probably is not such a bad idea.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 185):
All we have is the thousands of pages which comprised the RFP, and compare that to what they picked up on, it formed a very minor part.

Yeah, the minor part where the KC-30 did not meet minimum KPPs and the minor fact that the Air Force did not treat the two vendors equally. Just minor details.

[Edited 2008-09-15 19:26:25]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:43 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 188):
Nonsense, it would cost several billion dollars and take two or three years. Level the playing field by inviting LM, NG, Boeing and any other domestic aircraft manufacturer to submit a proposal for a new long range transport. The top two proposals get money to build a prototype for a fly off. It used to be done all the time (lightweight fighter and A-X come to mind) and there is no reason why it should not be done now. It would be money well spent by the government.

You obviously have no clue what is involved and what would be at risk. This would be an economic non-starter.
 
A5XX
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:36 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:06 am

An interesting idea for Boeing, I think, would be to submit a shortened variant of the B777, the KC777SP. A KC777 less a ring or two. Could be a viable alternative for short runway performance. And if the price is right. Who knows?  dollarsign 

A5XX
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 189):
You obviously have no clue what is involved and what would be at risk. This would be an economic non-starter.

You have a hard time with math. I can tell. Lets run through the numbers shall we.

8 Billion to develop the winning aircraft. Add to that another 3 or 4 billion to field the "losing" prototype.

End result is lots of design, engineering and manufacturing jobs are created and kept here. The air force gets a tanker based on the most modern airframe available and which would form the basis for all other large military transports. You strengthen our industrial base. You would possibly jump start another domestic competitor to Airbus.

Back to math.
Assume EADS had won this contract. For 40 billion we would have gotten 179 tankers. Of that 40 billion at least 42 percent or almost 17 billion would be sent offshore along with design manufacturing and industrial expertise since the 767 line would be shut. Yes I know many of the workers would be transferred to the 787 project but if the 767 line remained in operation or another line was set up elsewhere in the country then there would be additional demand for expertise.

So for 52 billion the air force gets it's tanker based on an entirely new airframe. The economy gets to add thousands of well paying skilled jobs. My tax dollars do not go offshore and perhaps a second company in this country builds large commercial airliners. Whats not to like.

It is amazing that there are so many people just willing to commit economic suicide on the alter of "free trade". Buy overseas when it makes sense sure, but don't buy overseas when there are acceptable domestic alternatives and it's net economic effect is so negative.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:25 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 191):
8 Billion to develop the winning aircraft. Add to that another 3 or 4 billion to field the "losing" prototype.

Today passenger aircraft suit so well as tanker platform that this idea is inappropriate. Instead of this you just could transfer the money to arbitrary 7000 americans if you want to support your economoy. No specifically built tanker offers such benefits that could legitimate the spendings. No new Aerospace know-how that would not already exist at the passenger plane makers.

Quoting Alien (Reply 191):
End result is lots of design, engineering and manufacturing jobs are created and kept here. The air force gets a tanker based on the most modern airframe available and which would form the basis for all other large military transports. You strengthen our industrial base. You would possibly jump start another domestic competitor to Airbus.

Remember: Tankers and passenger jets can be made from the same frame since the beginning. In fact it was the first jet tanker that pioneered the modern passenger jet. Thus tanker building is civil passenger jet building and vice versa. Do you want new competing US passenger aircrafts? Boeing vs. Lockheed vs. Airbus? IMO that would weaken Boeing far more than any thinkable lost tanker contract. With US DOD money developped airliners appearing on the market. The Airbus subsidies could not become less significant.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16438
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:04 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 187):
It might have formed a very minor part, but that doesn't diminish their importance regardless of how few there might have been.

I don't follow that analogy. Where are the NASA design errors in the KC-X procurement process ?

Quoting Alien (Reply 188):
How can you make such such a blatantly false statement when the GAO and the DOD both clearly said, and wrote otherwise.

Have they ? I have not seen a single statement from either the GAO or the DoD that says the WHOLE RFP was flawed. The GAO ONLY found 8 areas of Boeing protest that were sustainable, and those 8 areas, when put into context of the whole process were small.

Quoting Alien (Reply 188):
Just because you chose to ignore it for reasons only known to you does not mean that the evidence is not overwhelmingly there that this RFP process was seriously flawed.

No one has said that "this RFP process was seriously flawed", that is a typical beat up that Boeing supports have been using. In reality it was a very open competition, unlike 2002.

Quoting Alien (Reply 188):
Yeah, the minor part where the KC-30 did not meet minimum KPPs and the minor fact that the Air Force did not treat the two vendors equally. Just minor details.

The GAO did not find "KC-30 did not meet minimum KPPs", it has no ability to do that, they defer that to the USAF. The lawyers in the GAO with all due respect would have very limited aeronautical expertise at all, they are very good at the paper trail.

I agree that the GAO found that the USAF had unequal discussions with regard to a SINGLE "KPP objective relating to operational utility". As I have mentioned a few times already, KPP objectives were non-mandatory requirements, they formed part of the trade space.

The GAO did not find any unequal discussions with to do with the fundamental mandatory (KPP Thresholds) requirements.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:03 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 193):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 187):
It might have formed a very minor part, but that doesn't diminish their importance regardless of how few there might have been.

I don't follow that analogy. Where are the NASA design errors in the KC-X procurement process ?

You don't understand that? Really? Amazing.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:16 pm

Alien,

Get real or buy a bank and fund this yourself. Why do you think LM got out of the large airplane business? The Global economy/industrial base will not support more than 2 large frame aircraft manufacturers. In fact, with the level of governmental support inter twined in Airbus' business one could make an argument that the global support is actually less than 2 manufacturers.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:15 pm

There is no money to fund tanker R&D these days.

Actually, the AF will be lucky to get some funding for the KC-X program as it stands. Take a look at the US financial sector over the past weekend, the fall in the DOW and the concerns for the rest of the financial sector in coming months. Happy Days look to be over for the federal budget.

The KC-X program is going to need to justify itself in a reduced DoD budget after the elections and some new engines (and other upgrades) for some KC-135s might end up being the only option available for the AF.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:16 am

Alien, wrong again, the concern was about the Saudi pressure, that is distinct from the substance of the allegations, though I don't doubt you've some some either irrelevant, out of date or plain biased link to say otherwise.
News of the leaks, undermining the whole case, that I've seen, are in the very newspaper that has led the campaign against Saudi sales!

(And it's the United Kingdom, not England, not even knowing the name of nation you are always slagging off does nothing for credibility, besides, the Airbus workers in Wales might have something to say here!)

So some US manufacturer could go and build a whole new airframe to make a transport/tanker?
Who?
LM? Cessna? Scaled Composites?
I suppose it's possible if the DoD would fund it, after cutting elsewhere. What to cut?
The rest of F-22 production? Along with a few carrier battle groups, add in further C-130J, C-17 and C-5 modernisation and make sure the USMC and Army take a big hit too.
Seems a very high price for some outdated, rather odd idea of national pride.
Or just axe F-35-with all those nasty, dangerous foreigners involved in it.

So the manufacturing jobs that EADS-NG were going to create are invalid?
This whole attitude sounds very like those UAW goons who used to smash up foreign cars (or more likely US built ones from foreign companies), in the 1980's.
And look where they and the 'big three' who employed them are now?
What do we mean by Global Economy?
Clue - It's not about US domination.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:30 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 191):

So for 52 billion the air force gets it's tanker based on an entirely new airframe.



Quoting Alien (Reply 188):
Nonsense, it would cost several billion dollars and take two or three years.



Quoting Alien (Reply 191):
8 Billion to develop the winning aircraft. Add to that another 3 or 4 billion to field the "losing" prototype.

Show me one single large aircraft that has cost a mere $8billion to develop.

The Boeing 787 cost more than $10billion, before you add the cost of the delays.

The A350XWB is estimated to cost more than $10billion, and that could certainly rise.

Again, the Boeing 777 cost around $10billion.

And the fabled A380 certainly cost significantly more than $10billion.

$8billion for an 'entirely new airframe' is nothing less than entire fantasy, and thats even without taking into account your timeframe of 'two or three years' which doesn't even need disproving - the shortest timeframe of the above projects is the 787 at 4 years, and its well past that now. The 777 was 5 years.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled!

Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:36 pm

John Young has some interesting comments in the following article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2008/09/17/AR2008091702857.html

This statement seems to say all that needs to be said:

""Frankly," he said, Boeing's tanker "was smaller and should have been cheaper. . . . A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected" to pay. "

While I am sure there are some "sour grapes" in Young's comments, Boeing's scorched earth policy with their DoD dealings has to have caused some long term damage in the relationship. Yes Boeing had a right to protest, but the protest could have and should have been handled in a more professional and less public manner. Had Boeing raised twenty or so proveable issues with 8 being upheld, I believe everyone would have had a better feeling about the process. However when they throw up 100+ issues (some of which were self generated issues based on their guesses of what they thought NG was doing or how NG arrived at a number) just to see what sticks, that was a bit over the top.

Of course this entire process became way to complex. We are talking about a basically an off the self commercial tanker/trash hauler; not the next-next generation fighter. Part of the complexity was to prevent exactly what has happened.

Re-uping a smaller -135 fleet is looking better each day. (The fleet can contract as the number of receivers contracts.) The concern is the cargo issue. More C-17's (which would be the natural solution) really aren't the answer as because it really isn't an economical strategic non-combat hauler. Commercial carriers can provide some lift, but in-house capability is needed as depending on commercial carriers in a time of need (even if they have signed agreements) is risky (as in if they refuse the assignment - you cannot wait to force them to fly).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LTEN11, vrbarreto and 10 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