Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:59 pm

New round, new chances.

What will be offered?

Will Lockheed and/or others join the party? will New Generation engines be introduced?


(photo by Marcin Wichary)

Will other buy the latests A330F based KC30 in the mean time.

How to communicate the 777LR is not too large to replace KC135 after teaching the country for 6 yrs the KC30 is just too large, no matter what the USAF says..

A second 787 production line, starting with KC787 tankers?

[Edited 2008-09-13 06:25:37]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:28 pm

only if Boeing does NOT stick thier neck into it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:13 pm

I do not expect LM to offer a proposal because they would have to build a tanker from the ground up (unless they want to offer the Il-96.    ) and that has already been nixed by the RAND report.

I still do not expect the 777 to be offered. Same with the 787.

I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option. They might try and see if they can make the 767-400ERX work, but Airbus will no doubt be trying to improve the A330-200F/A330MRTT.

Boeing also has the advantage that with the KC-30A now being assembled in TLS and not MOB, there will be strong pressure from the IAM, SPEEA and other unions about buying a "French" tanker assembled by French workers. Yes. the KC-767 contains a significant amount of foreign-sourced content, but it was designed and finally assembled by American unionized workers in American facilities and that is what is going to resonate with the unions - and the members of Congress across the country who depend on unions to help keep them in office.

[Edited 2008-09-13 07:14:56]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:16 pm

The next tanker will be the least advanced technology airplane that Boeing will grace us with. NG/EADS is no longer a factor. LM has shown no interest in producing a competing airplane.

Predicition - within 10 years we will be seeing the effects of handing this over to Boeing without competition. (Hint - it will not be a pretty picture.)
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 3):
LM has shown no interest in producing a competing airplane

Not as long someone high in Government now does what they can to remove anything LM has built--like C-141 and C-5's
 
astuteman
Posts: 7152
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:58 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option.

 checkmark 
The observation lounge for everyone else......

Rgds
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:05 pm

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Will Lockheed and/or others join the party?

No.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
will New Generation engines be introduced?

Maybe...if the timelines for deployment of the new tankers are far enough into the future.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
How to communicate the 777LR is not too large to replace KC135 after teaching the country for 6 yrs the KC30 is just too large, no matter what the USAF says..

Easy. Employ the same tactics that NG/EADS did to convince the USAF their tanker, while very big, brings advantages to the table. Start with an update of the famous spider-web graph.  Wink

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
A second 787 production line, starting with KC787 tankers?

Maybe...if the timelines for deployment of the new tankers are far enough into the future.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option.

Possibly. But if McCain wins the White House I expect him to go to bat for the taxpayer to ensure no one has an advantage.

[Edited 2008-09-13 10:12:48]
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
trex8
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:20 pm

what about b offering a C17 based tanker???
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:38 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
what about b offering a C17 based tanker???

Ramp messes with the boom. Remove the ramp and the airplane is useless as a cargo carrier. Besides, Boeing will have the RFP written to assure the -200AT (the cheapest and less technology advanced option) is the chosen airplane.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:28 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing also has the advantage that with the KC-30A now being assembled in TLS and not MOB, there will be strong pressure from the IAM, SPEEA and other unions about buying a "French" tanker assembled by French workers.

If Airbus/NG wins, you bet it will be assembled in MOB.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1570
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:33 pm

A 764 would take engines with what......about 65,000 lbs thrust? Seems like the Genx's for the 748 would be a pretty good fit.
Anon
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:16 pm



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 10):
A 764 would take engines with what......about 65,000 lbs thrust? Seems like the Genx's for the 748 would be a pretty good fit.

I think the 764 will be soundly rejected on the tail strike basis. It's a geometry thing that's impossible to solve. There's simply too much fuselage between the main gear and the tail.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15146
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:10 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option. They might try and see if they can make the 767-400ERX work, but Airbus will no doubt be trying to improve the A330-200F/A330MRTT.

The two vendors have revealed their hand somewhat, they know what each others bid involved via the GAO process, and the know how the USAF evaluated the. NG now know very well which areas would get the "best bang for buck" in terms of development costs to make their frame even more attractive.

If Boeing offers anything bigger than the 767-200LRF based aircraft, it will logically have a higher purchase price, higher development cost, and high life cycle costs. As it was the KC-767AT and KC-30 were just about equal. Boeing would have to justify any additional capability with the higher price and longer development time, and if the KC-30 is still offering greater capability (as I think it would over a 767-400ERX) and better timing, for a lower price, all that has happened is the process of buying the KC-30 got delayed.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 8):
Ramp messes with the boom. Remove the ramp and the airplane is useless as a cargo carrier. Besides, Boeing will have the RFP written to assure the -200AT (the cheapest and less technology advanced option) is the chosen airplane.

Not to mention requirements like the whole of the main deck needs to be available for passenger or aeromedical, lack of range, and it cruises at M0.76, the requirement was M0.8.

Quoting A342 (Reply 9):
If Airbus/NG wins, you bet it will be assembled in MOB.

Yes, need to keep in mind they already have an engineering facility in MOB that is working on the A330/340/350/380.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 10):
A 764 would take engines with what......about 65,000 lbs thrust? Seems like the Genx's for the 748 would be a pretty good fit.

Seem to recall the proposed to put the GP7200 or Trent 600 on the 767-400ERX

from http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000726b.html

" * Seating for 245 passengers in three classes - the same as the 767-400ER.
* Maximum takeoff weight of 465,000 pounds (210,920 kg) - an increase of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) more than the 767-400ER.
* Range of more than 6,150 nautical miles (11,390 km) an increase of more than 525 nautical miles (950 km) over the 767-400ER.
* Improved takeoff field length - the 767-400ERX would need just 9,650 feet (2,940 m) of runway.
* Higher thrust engines - maximum thrust levels would be 72,000 pounds (32,659 kg).
* Increased fuel volume without compromising cargo capacity. The additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.
* Strengthened wing, fuselage and landing gear.

Boeing has signed an agreement with Rolls-Royce to provide engines for the new 767-400ERX.

The company is also working with the General Electric-Pratt & Whitney Engine Alliance (EA). The EA board has authorized offering the GP7172 to Boeing, and an agreement between the two parties will be reached shortly.

Both the Rolls-Royce Trent 600 and Engine Alliance GP7172 engines fulfill the 767-400ERX requirements for thrust ratings up to 72,000 pounds. These same engines are offered on the 747X Family, which is targeted to enter service in 2005.

In addition to these capabilities, the 767-400ERX would join the 767-400ER in offering superior economics. When compared to the Airbus A330-200, the 767-400ERX would carry the same number of passengers, but at 3 percent lower seat-mile costs, 3 percent lower trip costs and less fuel burn. These economic and efficiency benefits provide operators with less risk than the competition."

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 11):
I think the 764 will be soundly rejected on the tail strike basis. It's a geometry thing that's impossible to solve. There's simply too much fuselage between the main gear and the tail.

If you do what they do on the 777-300ER, with that modified main gear setup, it should give them a couple of extra degrees to play with.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:17 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option.

Only concern is that is exactly that was done 6 yrs ago & Boeings CFO went to jail and the CEO decided it was better to go too after McCain exposed how EADS was pushed out & the deal was fixed.

Air Force Allowed Boeing to Rewrite Terms of Tanker Contract, Documents Show
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0328-09.htm

Doing that again would be a legal challenge I guess.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
Possibly. But if McCain wins the White House I expect him to go to bat for the taxpayer to ensure no one has an advantage.

Even if McCain takes the White House, Democrats will be the ones approving the defense bill. They can already override a Presidential veto in the House and might very well be able to do the same in the Senate. And if they can't, they will still be able to quash any Republican attempt at a filibuster so they won't be able to hold up any bill backing Boeing.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Only concern is that is exactly that was done 6 yrs ago & Boeings CFO went to jail and the CEO decided it was better to go too after McCain exposed how EADS was pushed out & the deal was fixed.

I know you play this card every time, but it was six years ago, Keesje. The American public and the Congress don't care anymore. It's in the past. The guilty parties paid their penalties. It didn't matter in the last RFP and it sure as heck won't matter in the next.

And McCain is now paying for his actions. The US taxpayer will pay more for whatever planes wins the KC-45A RFP then if they had just leased - and then bought - the original KC-767. So thanks to him, crime does pay.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:10 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 8):
Ramp messes with the boom. Remove the ramp and the airplane is useless as a cargo carrier. Besides, Boeing will have the RFP written to assure the -200AT (the cheapest and less technology advanced option) is the chosen airplane.

If this was true, Boeing appears to take the stance that no one else can play dirty but Boeing. They whined because they didn't like the way the Air Force handled the competition but they're certainly not squeemish about manipulating the new competition to their advantage. Ten thousand skunks can't stink as much as this does ... if it's even remotely true!
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:13 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 15):
If this was true, Boeing appears to take the stance that no one else can play dirty but Boeing. They whined because they didn't like the way the Air Force handled the competition but they're certainly not squeemish about manipulating the new competition to their advantage.

Hey, when NG and EADS did it, they won the RFP.  checkmark 
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:25 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
If you do what they do on the 777-300ER, with that modified main gear setup, it should give them a couple of extra degrees to play with.

True, but add a tail boom and it's going to at least eat any gains there.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:27 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):

Hey, when NG and EADS did it, they won the RFP.

?

They are not prosecuted / trailed / convicted like Boeing was. They did not break the law anywhere. It's not even suggested anywhere. Lets not rewrite history.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:30 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
They are not prosecuted / trailed / convicted like Boeing was. They did not break the law anywhere. It's not even suggested anywhere. Lets not rewrite history.

We're evidently talking about two entirely different things...  confused 
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 15):
If this was true, Boeing appears to take the stance that no one else can play dirty but Boeing. They whined because they didn't like the way the Air Force handled the competition but they're certainly not squeemish about manipulating the new competition to their advantage.

Hey, when NG and EADS did it, they won the RFP.

I do not agree with you on this one Stitch, and usually I agree with the many good posts you write. NG and EADS did got the RFP changed from a B767 custom made designer suit to a more open bid. Otherwise the bid would always be a no win scenario for them. After that change, the better plane could get the better rewards on points, so the NG-EADS bid won clearly since the base platform they have proposed blows any B767 variant, as we have come to know them today, away.

That RFP change left Boeing with the no win scenario, because they were bidding with an inferior platform. And then all the "dirty tactics" came in to play which has lead to calling off the competition. A protest at the GAO is not dirty tactics here, but the stalling and manipulating is.

No way Boeing needed a bit more time to respond on the changed bid, which was now in accordance with the GAO ruling, or they might pull out. They have had about 10 years to create the best proposal for a tanker to the USAF and always thought they had the deal in the bag.

But when faced with stiff competition, they failed miserably. Within that short extra period of time Boeing asked for they could never have submitted a total new platform with any chances of it being viable to win under the rules of the corrected RFP. Especially the risk of development time and costs would probably kill off their chances right away.

But in this election year, and with their political powers, they could kill the lost competition RFP, and thus the no win scenario, to get their supporters in congress and the USAF (which for sure has Boeing supporters too, as there will be NG or LM supporters in the air force) to draft up the RFP that will basically be back where we started before NG-EADS stepped in. Again it will be a custom made tailored suite RFP based on the than probably even further developed B767-AT, maybe based on the B767-400ERX or whatever, and for sure they will write the RFP up differently than the earlier ones. They now probably have years to overcome their diifculties. Even the proven platform Japanese and Italian B767-T are giving them many headaches. Which lead me to believe that after 10 years or lousy preparations, they would not even be able and ready to get an unproven hybrid-B767-AT version safely, reliable, and within costs and designated delivery time frame to the USAF!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I expect that Boeing will work with their representatives in Congress to get the RFP changed so that the KC-767ADV is the only viable option. They might try and see if they can make the 767-400ERX work, but Airbus will no doubt be trying to improve the A330-200F/A330MRTT.
I agree with you on this one. NG-EADS will not give up I believe, they are geninly interested in the revenues that would come out of winning the bid. But it will get even harder for them to win again since the political power Boeing has will sadly enough make sure that their chances will be favoured as much as possible where NG-EADS's chances will diminish rapidly.

This is a totally different thing then the scam lease deal. If the RFP is bend in this way, Boeing will win, NG-EADS loose without real grounds to file a formal protest (although the might pull out after seeing the RFP that will be drafted up), and in the end the USAF gets the best B767 they ever could, though still the inferior platform to the KC-30, especially if NG-EADS do bring forward the A330-F based version with possibly the GEnx engine!

It will take some very creative political pull to get the RFP drafted in such a way, but with the political power Boeing apparently has, I do not doubt that they can pull such a thing off. That may be sad, but is in my opinion very true.

BTW: I have read many times here on A-net that the USAF should know that they could expect a rough ride when proposing an Airbus based plane for the bid. My question to all who have stated that is why?

To me such remarks show that if NG proposes an Airbus it will be difficult to win and it will cause a lot of shock-waves in the political and military communities. If NG had teamed up with i.e. LM, then it would probably not have been any problem?

If that is true, that to me shows also that many people on key functions and places in this whole process are still very xenophobic about such procurement processes where not all bidders are US based. They probably conveniently ignore the fact that all modern planes, even the outdated B767 has quite a large part of foreign content built in to it. And with that they are conveniently misleading the one that put them in office, the American voting public. Actually, they are snubbing the public with such behavior.

Again, if this is true, I state that the American voting public, who are also the tax payers who in the end will fund this whole project, deserve much and much better political representatives than the ones they have "taking care of their interests" right now.

Kind regards

[Edited 2008-09-13 19:55:22]

[Edited 2008-09-13 20:01:38]
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:02 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 20):
To me such remarks show that if NG proposes an Airbus it will be difficult to win and it will cause a lot of shock-waves in the political and military communities. If NG had teamed up with i.e. LM, then it would probably not have been any problem?



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 20):
If that is true, that to me shows also that many people on key functions and places in this whole process are still very xenophobic about such procurement processes where not all bidders are US based.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 20):
BTW: I have read many times here on A-net that the USAF should know that they could expect a rough ride when proposing an Airbus based plane for the bid. My question to all who have stated that is why?

Those three quotes above indicate to me that all you have been doing is writing and not reading.

There are two problems with the EADS entry - one technical as it relates to the RFP and one political/economic.

The air force did not just pull the requirements that made up the RFP out of thin air. The GAO found that the EADS entry did not meet the minimums required as set forth by the RFP. The Air Force did not contest that finding. Some have argued that the air force wanted the A330's additional capabilities. If that is the case then they need to re-write the RFP and conduct another competition. There is nothing unfair or illegal about this. In fact it would be wrong if it where done any other way. What is the sense of having rules and procedures if you do not follow them.

Why should we send billions of tax dollars offshore when there is a perfectly acceptable alternative that is designed and built here. Why do you think it xenophobic to protect our industry? Lets face it slapping together major components is not exactly high tech. In fact it was one of the very complaints BAE had with the JSF. If we want to talk about xenophobia then we need to look at Galileo, the A400, Eurofighter and a host of other European projects that have an American substitute that is as good or better. This is not the F-22, it's a tanker. Good enough and cheap enough is all that is needed.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:00 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
Those three quotes above indicate to me that all you have been doing is writing and not reading.

I have been reading quite well, very well I might add and I also have noted your many posts in other threads about this topic.

The technical issues you indicate were indeed technical issues. But they were not platform based (A330-MRTT), but RFP based technical issues. Those issues have been corrected after the GAO ruling, this is the way things should go after the GAO has ruled. But out of this ruling came a for Boeing very disappointing result.

With their many protests at the GAO (95% of them were dismissed) Boeing had hoped to kill off the original RFP (the no win scenario for Boeing), and although the GAO used some strong words in their ruling (imho politically motivated for Boeing not to loose face over so many turned down protests), in the end they ruled that only very minor changes in the specifications of the RFP would be sufficient to make the RFP a fully legitimate and legally correct document.

The USAF has done so. And then I can repeat parts of earlier posts which describe what lead to the killing of the current RFP.

About your other point: It is true that some countries in Europe do favor their own Industry, or parts of their Industry, even when better foreign alternatives for the products these industries produce are available.

But the European countries buy a hell of lot more US made defense products (that is what we are talking about here) then that the US buys defense products from European countries. Even when the European products are better. The Netherlands (my country) almost always buys US made defense products, even if there are better alternatives available. And my country is not the only one in Europe doing so. So why is it so hard for the US to bring some more balance into purchased and sold military products from and to European partners.

I do not necessary agree on the lists of European products you name that have better US made counterparts, that is highly debatable. But that is a different discussion which should not derail this thread.

But you are right that we are not talking about the F22 here (a superior and beautiful fighter aircraft), but we are talking about a tanker only. So why make such a fuzz (not you personal, but everybody opposed to the NG-EADS win) when the platform which has an only slightly higher percentage not US built components in it, is clearly superior. It is not that the B767 is 100% designed, created and build in the US and that the KC-30 is 100% designed, created and build in Europe! Far from it actually! If I recall correctly the total percentage of the deal for this tanker to go directly and indirectly to the US economy was for both bids way over 60%!

Slapping components together is indeed not the highest tech thing I can think about. But it is for sure also not the lowest tech thing I can think about and to call it as such is I think degrading to everyone working in (aircraft) manufacturing, especially to the ones doing the "slapping work" on no matter what kind of aircraft from whatever company they are working on. I know you target the economic added value of the possible Mobile, Alabam plant that is tied to this deal.

But also that is not the issue here since EADS & Airbus have already several centres of excellence in engineering and development (the "real" high tech what you are talking about) in the USA. There work is done for the latest EADS projects, including of course Airbus airliners.

What Boeing in the end clearly fears (and maybe that is part of why they are making such a fuzz) is a brand new, superiorly efficient production line of their main competitor in the important and lucrative civilian and possibly military aviation market. And that this production line would be in Boeings back-yard and that the initial funding (though inderect) would come from the USAF to get their tankers produced locally. And which would make their direct competitior less vulnarable to the Dollar-Euro ratio changes. That is what they really fear.

And to prevent that from happening, even if the total investment NG and EADS (the latter military and civilian) would be much more beneficiary to the US economy (jobs and economic prosperity) then the value of the B767 tanker deal ever could be, they have tried all the tactics they have put on display. And that display has not been a very nice one and I do not believe anyone is really proud about these tactics.

Boeing could not care less. Boeing does not care at all about American jobs, despite all their rhetoric's. The enormous amount of work done on the B787 abroad, where most of the valuable high-tech work is outsourced to foreign companies, clearly shows this. Boeing is a privately owned company which should put the interests of its share holders first. And that is in the end exactly what they have done here to keep a shot at this deal.

Which BTW they already admitted to their shareholders as being booked in the long term revenue forecast of the company. They never thought they could loose, how arrogant can you get?, For sure what Boeing has done goes at the costs of the American tax payer and the American war-fighter! Please forget all the rhetoric's, in the end it is all about the money and stockholder value!
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:16 am

Fair disclosure - I have economic interests in both Northrup Grumman and Boeing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
The technical issues you indicate were indeed technical issues.

You misunderstand. The GAO clearly stated that if the Air Force evaluated the planes based on the RFP, the EADS plane did not meet several of the minimum requirements for acceptance. They further clearly went on to say that if the Air Force had properly evaluated the entries that the Boeing entry had a very good chance of being selected.

It really does not matter how many points the GAO upheld or denied. They do not all have equal weight. EADS did not lose on a technicality, they lost because their entry did not meet requirements and the air force did not properly take into account life cycle costs. This is the first time in 30 years Boeing protested a procurement decision. It is the Air Force and not Boeing that is at fault here.

Your continued insistence that the GAO pointed out minor, fixable issues in the RFP continues to indicate to me that you either do not grasp the issues or you are only reading what you want to read. In fact for you to insinuate that the GAO would be politically motivated to favor Boeing really shows that you have no clue about what has happened. The GAO is full of career civil servants who (from personal experience) have little to fear in regard to repercussions from their employer.

The Air Force then compounded the error by deciding to go ahead and try and ram through their new requirements under the old RFP. The Air Force should have made the case for a more capable tanker with Congress and then if Congress approved they should have come out with a new RFP. That is the way the process is supposed to work.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
But the European countries buy a hell of lot more US made defense products

Don't be so sure about that. Three of the top 10 defense contractors in the world are European and they do a lot of business in the US. But, even if true, so what. We buy from europe when it makes sense. We have by far (and want to keep) the largest defense industrial base in the world. there is no comparison. Besides we do plenty of business with Europe. For example the UK is getting 15-20% of every F-35 sold. The vast bulk of which are being sold to guess who. In short this is a non issue. We owe Europe nothing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
So why make such a fuzz (not you personal, but everybody opposed to the NG-EADS win) when the platform which has an only slightly higher percentage not US built components in it, is clearly superior. It is not that the B767 is 100% designed, created and build in the US and that the KC-30 is 100% designed, created and build in Europe! Far from it actually! If I recall correctly the total percentage of the deal for this tanker to go directly and indirectly to the US economy was for both bids way over 60%!

The 767 tanker has around 85% US content and it will support thousands of skilled design and engineering jobs for the airframe. The EADS tanker has 58 percent content and that is only because the avionics and engines are US. The airframe is European. I find it far preferable to use my tax dollars to keep fellow Americans building wings than people in Wales. In fact I find it rather insulting the way some of the Europeans on this board think that they had something taken from them. Buy your own tankers and buy whatever you want. It's your business, not mine.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
But also that is not the issue here since EADS & Airbus have already several centres of excellence in engineering and development (the "real" high tech what you are talking about) in the USA. There work is done for the latest EADS projects, including of course Airbus airliners.

Yup, about 1000 engineers. Big deal. Airbus is still foreign owned and the intellectual capital and profits go overseas. Sorry, not with my tax dollars unless there is some real unique technical, military or economic advantage. In this case there is not.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Boeing could not care less. Boeing does not care at all about American jobs,

No one ever said they did. If it was NG building the 767 and a foreign company using Boeing as a front I would be against it as well.

Tankers are pretty much commodities. The 767 may not be as capable (it better not be since it's half the size) as the 330 but it obviously can do the job well. If the Air Force has come up with a different mission with the need for a different aircraft type then they should sell it to congress and come out with a new RFP.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
And to prevent that from happening, even if the total investment NG and EADS (the latter military and civilian) would be much more beneficiary to the US economy (jobs and economic prosperity) then the value of the B767 tanker deal ever could be, they have tried all the tactics they have put on display. And that display has not been a very nice one and I do not believe anyone is really proud about these tactics.

What a load of manure. Talk about EADS and prosperity. I have a better idea. The US should simply fund the development of a new long range transport. Economic benefits, you cannot be serious, Again, the intellectual capital, the profits and the control of it all will be in foreign hands. Sorry it just does not work that way.

Please lose your concern for the war fighter and our prosperity. We can do that by ourselves. In fact I would venture that you could not care less about the war fighter and the taxpayer and care more about EADS getting a foothold in the American defense market.
 
KennyK
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:47 am

Reading through this thread I get the feeling that what the competing aircraft can do is immaterial, you are just like the politicians, Airbus (NG-EADS) or Boeing to the day you die. All I can see are arguments to support one or the other manufacturer and no arguments about which aircraft is the better to do the job. What the Airforce require is lost in bickering such that as usual the thread has broken down to an A V B slog and the tail is wagging the dog.  yawn 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7152
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:05 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
Why do you think it xenophobic to protect our industry?

But in the long run, excluding products with an Airbus content from competitions, and even more, stifling the growth of Airbus activities in the USA, will have the opposite effect.

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
We owe Europe nothing.

That's fair comment.

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
Yup, about 1000 engineers. Big deal. Airbus is still foreign owned and the intellectual capital and profits go overseas.

But each step forward brings more and more of Airbus's intellectual capital and profits into the USA. This is just one part of a potentially much greater process. I struggle to understand why this is a bad thing......

Rgds
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15146
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:09 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Hey, when NG and EADS did it, they won the RFP.

You are rewriting history, FYI for the KC-X RFI Boeing submitted 3 proposals, the 777 tanker, the 767 tanker, and a KC-135 upgrade program. That was pre RFP days.

Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
The GAO found that the EADS entry did not meet the minimums required as set forth by the RFP.

What the GAO actually said ....

"This decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies"

At no point did the GAO say the the KC-30 or KC-767 did not meet requirements. Additionally their were mandatory requirements (KPP thresholds), and non mandatory requirements (like KPP objectives). The GAO in their finding uses the word "requirements" to mean both the mandatory and non mandatory.

Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
The Air Force did not contest that finding.

As the statement you made was false.

Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
Why should we send billions of tax dollars offshore when there is a perfectly acceptable alternative that is designed and built here.

You would be sending billions of dollars offshore either way.

Why did the USAF bother with the F-22/35 when there was a "perfectly acceptable alternative that is designed and built here", could it be becuase of the additional capability ?

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
The GAO clearly stated that if the Air Force evaluated the planes based on the RFP, the EADS plane did not meet several of the minimum requirements for acceptance.

What the GAO actually said ....

"This decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies"

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
They further clearly went on to say that if the Air Force had properly evaluated the entries that the Boeing entry had a very good chance of being selected.

Boeing would have had the same chance as before, 50/50. The footnote on the last page says "it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award", if you look at the case law they pointed to, "substantial chance" means "that it was within the zone of active consideration", it does not mean, as you assumed, higher than 50%.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:55 pm

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
You misunderstand. The GAO clearly stated that if the Air Force evaluated the planes based on the RFP, the EADS plane did not meet several of the minimum requirements for acceptance



Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
What the GAO actually said ....

"This decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies"

At no point did the GAO say the the KC-30 or KC-767 did not meet requirements. Additionally their were mandatory requirements (KPP thresholds), and non mandatory requirements (like KPP objectives). The GAO in their finding uses the word "requirements" to mean both the mandatory and non mandatory.


As Zeke points out Alien, it is you who is mistaking and misunderstands the situation including the ruling of the GAO and its consequences. If Boeing would have got out the GAO ruling what they hoped for, they would be competing fair and square instead of acting the way they did. Something they have never done throughout this whole process.

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
Your continued insistence that the GAO pointed out minor, fixable issues in the RFP continues to indicate to me that you either do not grasp the issues or you are only reading what you want to read


Exactly the opposite is true! The GAO indicated minor points only. They were important enough to make corrections to the RFP, that is correct. But since it took the USAF only a very short time to do this, and the adaptations to comply with the GAO ruling are truly minimal (and you know that but conveniently leave this out), and the fact that Boeing is still left with the no win scenario, indicates clearly again you are reading what you want to read. Namely Boeings side of the story only!

I do not really want to get personal here but you are continuously reading what you want to read, (which is your good right) namely vague arguments to somehow justify the change of the initial loss by Boeing into a later Boeing win! And that with a clearly inferior platform. Just as Boeing is doing by the way, so I can not really blame you for it. 

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
EADS did not lose on a technicality, they lost ......


Where is Northrop-Grumman in your picture? As far as I know they are the prime contractor. You have done so (only talking about EADS in this debate instead of NG-EADS) in many posts in several threads over this issue! This indicates that for YOU it is Airbus (EADS) vs. Boeing. NG is totally irrelevant to you, all your posts over the last months have shown this.

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
In fact I would venture that you could not care less about the war fighter and the taxpayer and care more about EADS getting a foothold in the American defense market.


Think what you want. I have friends in the US military for who I care very much and whos efforts they are making I value highly. But again the contrary is true: it is you who does not want EADS to succeed getting a foothold in the USA (and thus getting more American) because it is a "foreign" company.

But both are publicly owned companies. I am sure that many people, banks and other institutional investment firms worldwide own stock in EADS or Boeing. So how do you know for sure who is owned more American or not? Although likely Boeing has more shareholders and EADS has more European shareholders, that situation could always change every minute that the stock markets are open!

Maybe some Russian billionaire buys Boeing or EADS (or both ). Are they than suddenly Russian Companies. This is of course not going to happen but makes clear that the argument of a "foreign" company is not a very strong one in this discussion! No matter how xenophobicly that point sometimes is made in the discussions.

[Edited 2008-09-14 05:59:15]
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:01 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
it will support thousands of skilled design and engineering jobs for the airframe

okay, considering the developement of the aircraft took place in the '70s you can be sure of it that there are no longer thousands of design and engineering jobs linked to the 767 program (as the A330).

You will only have that numbers at the start of a new program, say JSF, which is already shrinking it's design and engineering staff.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:11 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
As Zeke points out Alien, it is you who is mistaking and misunderstands the situation including the ruling of the GAO and its consequences. If Boeing would have got out the GAO ruling what they hoped for, they would be competing fair and square instead of acting the way they did.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
Your continued insistence that the GAO pointed out minor, fixable issues in the RFP continues to indicate to me that you either do not grasp the issues or you are only reading what you want to read


Exactly the opposite is true! The GAO indicated minor points only. They were important enough to make corrections to the RFP, that is correct. But since it took the USAF only a very short time to do this, and the adaptations to comply with the GAO ruling are truly minimal (and you know that but conveniently leave this out), and the fact that Boeing is still left with the no win scenario, indicates clearly again you are reading what you want to read. Namely Boeings side of the story only!

Sorry I have been out for a while.

From what I know what is now going on with the DOD/USAF KC-X program, there essentially isn't one any more. This is not a reflection on either EADS/NG or Boeing. The DOD and USAF decided they could not meet the adjustments the GAO wanted in the RFP before the end of this year. I think that is reasonable, given the time involved in interpeting exactly what the GAO wants, given the political interest in the KC-X program.

I believe what the SecDef wants above all else (even more than the selected airplane) is an open, honest, politically acceptable, and free of possible legal challenges program. This is going to be very difficult for SecDef Gates. Seeing Gates is currently on the "short list" for SecDef for both Obama and McCain, it leaves the apperance he is fair honest, and open minded about the selection.

The down side of all this is he will also be subjected to criticisim by the KC-X loosing side.

But, he may have already settled this criticisim. I have noticed that the retirment of the KC-135Es is continuing, even though they are going into flyable storage. The SecDef has decided the USAF already has enough KC-135R/T and KC-10A to continue with operations at the current levels. To me, this is disturbing as it could be interpeted as there is no longer a military need for a replacement of the KC-135E, thus the 179 tanker KC-X program will no longer be needed.

It also sets up the possibility (since the KC-135Es continue to go into flyable storage) of a quick re-engining program in the future, should a need for additional tankers be identified.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
FYI for the KC-X RFI Boeing submitted 3 proposals, the 777 tanker, the 767 tanker, and a KC-135 upgrade program. That was pre RFP days.

That was partially true, Zeke. Originally Boeing did propose the re-engined KC-135E in their pre-bid proposals. But, when the formal KC-X bid was submitted by Boeing, all they proposed was the KC-767AT. It was PEMCO who formerly submitted the re-engined KC-135E bid as a formal proposal. The USAF never really considered that bid as serious, as the KC-747-8F bid that was submitted by that small SFO company.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:23 pm

Let me at least go back to subject:

First the new RFP should state what max tanker is called a medium.

It could be defined as (not intended to be complete) e.g.:
- Minimum fuel offload an more gets more credit
- MAX runway length - hard target. Tanker must be sized to carry min weight to max runway length. More weight to max runway length would give more credit.

For Boeing:
So we talked about a 767-400EX with new engines.
How about a 767-300EX version, also re-engined.
How about a shortened 777, a 777-150 or 777-100 to meet midsize in comparison to 767-400 if a 777-200 wouldn't be 'midsized'? Similar engines (lets say faimily) as the 767-400 would get (Power adjusted).
I would rule out the 787 at this time (unless they delay behind 2015)

For Airbus:
a330-200F is mandatory and probably re-engined to GEnX.
If bigger is better, then a A330-250.
If RFP is custom tailored to 767-200, then a A330-150F could be created.
I would also rule out a A350 (and wouldn't think it would have so much of an advantage against a 330 re-engined.

So please calculator professionals, use your spreadsheets.

regards

Flyglobal
 
LMP737
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Will Lockheed and/or others join the party?

Since Northrup is teamed up with EADS already who could Lockeed join up with? Guess they could offer up a clean sheet design. However that would take longer to enter service and would be a lot more expensive. Something the USAF cannot afford right now.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:03 pm

We are probably at least 4 years away for the selected tanker's (assuming the award is made in 2009) EIS date (2009 award; 2010-2012 development; initial construction; and testing). By pulling the E's, we have no margin for error on the R's and the 10's. (While some of the E's are technically in "flying storage", none will ever see the air again. If they do all hell will be breaking lose.)

The KC-X, Y and Z tags will probably go away. The Z program surely will be folded into the X program, and we will see a medium program and a large program (probably underway at the same time at some point). That is a lot of airplanes that will need to be delivered in a relatively short period of time by one manufacturer, but that is the way it is shaping up.

The only way someone other than Boeing to be in the mix would be for EADS to sell NG or LM the blueprints and production rights for an Airbus airplane with all fabrication and assembly in Alabama (NG) or Georgia (LM). That would be an "American" airplane under anyone's definition. (Somewhat akin to the Harrier AV-8II by MD.)

At least it will keep these threads going!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:15 pm

It really isn't a case of simple "xenophobia".

If it was, BAE, for example. would not have made the inroads into the US defense business they have.

If it was, the future President of the United States would be flying a Sikorski and not a European-sourced helicopter.

And if it was, EADS would not have even been invited to bid for the KC-45 RFP, much less be chosen and remain the USAF's choice.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:11 pm

Now, I don't have too big a problem if Lockheed is involved as it's an American company... however I don't like Airbus winning.

Now all the government's gotta do is produce a lock-out bid. It basically is a bid requirement for a capability that ONLY the contractor you wanted to win can fulfill. And I don't see why the requirements can't keep being modified to keep the contractor you want to be the only one able to fulfill your requirements so only they can win.


Blackbird
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:24 pm

Simple solution for the US Air Force.
1. Which a/c are they trying to replace, KC-135
2. Does the US Air Force know the specifications of the KC-135, if yes, write the RFP based on that as the lower limit, the upper limit has to be the mimimun or lower limits of the next largest tanker that they have which is the KC-10.
3. How can they write a RFP to be fair to existing a/c unless it is based on the B-737 and the A-320, as those are the only a/c either OEM makes that are similar to each other.
4. The A321 is still in production, the B-757 is not, the A330 does not compete with the B-767 whichever variant, the A340 versus the B-744, B-777 etc.

The main question is why bid if you are buying a/c off the shelf? The a/c is already in production, you know its strength and weakness, you save funds on prototypes, training etc. as new simulators are not required. All the Air Force has to do is have a internal discussion among themselves and then propose a buy to the Pentagon and be done with it.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:25 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 34):
Now, I don't have too big a problem if Lockheed is involved as it's an American company... however I don't like Airbus winning.

Where is NG in your story? And are you proposing a continuously fraud bidding procedure that should keep countering moves of the one bidder you do now want to win to favour the one you would like to win?  Sad
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:52 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The USAF never really considered that bid as serious, as the KC-747-8F bid that was submitted by that small SFO company.

From my understanding, that small company never bid because Boeing would not provide pricing information to them on the 747. The reason given by Boeing was the USAF did not want an aircraft larger than the 767. We now know Boeing was wrong. I can't help but wonder where things would be today if Boeing had bid a 747 along with the 767? Would Boeing be building 747's for the next tanker (or both)?

Will they now take that small company up on its offer to work together? I read on Leehams web site that that same small company also suggested a 767-400 with GEnx engines which I read Boeing is now considering.

Welcome back - I thought you may have gotten tired of us.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15146
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):

That was partially true, Zeke. Originally Boeing did propose the re-engined KC-135E in their pre-bid proposals. But, when the formal KC-X bid was submitted by Boeing, all they proposed was the KC-767AT. It was PEMCO who formerly submitted the re-engined KC-135E bid as a formal proposal. The USAF never really considered that bid as serious, as the KC-747-8F bid that was submitted by that small SFO company.

Incorrect, what I said originally was correct, at the RFI stage (request for information), Boeing gave the USAF info on the three options. The RFI stage is to source from industry what is out there, what is possible before releasing the RFP, it is not an offer, it is simply trying to establish what options the government has. KC-135 re-engine program was an option they were aware of, as they had already been doing that, the KC-767AT and KC-777 were new to them. I am sure the KC-135 option would have include some avionics upgrades as well, to get the data links installed.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 35):
Simple solution for the US Air Force.
1. Which a/c are they trying to replace, KC-135

That assumption is flawed. The USAF fleet will look nothing like the fleet when the KC-135 was introduced. The Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) analysis the USAF did as part of the KC-X program found that both the KC-767AT and KC-30 provided more refueling capability and more efficiently to the USAF, and that was better for the USAF than a KC-135.

Also in terms of refueling, the new booms have a larger boom envelope than what the KC-135 can provide.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:50 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 38):
That assumption is flawed. The USAF fleet will look nothing like the fleet when the KC-135 was introduced. The Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) analysis the USAF did as part of the KC-X program found that both the KC-767AT and KC-30 provided more refueling capability and more efficiently to the USAF, and that was better for the USAF than a KC-135.

My point was that the KC-135 is the a/c up for replacement, not the KC-10, that will come later, hence my take that the minimum specs for the replacement RFP will be those of the existing KC-135 and the upper limit somewhere below the KC-10.

Another difference now than when the KC-135 was purchased is the need for fewer booms because the Air Force will have less a/c, a problem that creates is that fewer a/c may be in one location, but the fewer a/c in total will still have the same or greater dispersion around the globe, so it might be a wash anyway, and I am only looking at tanking situations.

To be cheap, they should probably get a tactical tanker the size of the A320 / B737 and eliminate a lot of the noise about cargo capacity etc., there are so many of those a/c around and will be so for years to come.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15146
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:19 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):

My point was that the KC-135 is the a/c up for replacement, not the KC-10, that will come later, hence my take that the minimum specs for the replacement RFP will be those of the existing KC-135 and the upper limit somewhere below the KC-10.

Again your point is flawed.

The USAF is looking for a new generation tanker, it is NOT looking for a KC-135E/R replacement, nor is it looking for a KC-10 replacement, it is not looking for a tanker of any specified size. It is looking for a new generation taker that meets a set of requirements, it does not care what that looks like or how small or big it is.

KC-135s are being retired today, without any new frames joining the fleet, when the new generation tanker joins the fleet they will continue to retire them. It does not follow that they are waiting for the new tanker to "replace" KC-135s. What the air force has established it needs about 600 KC-135R equivalent aircraft, that would mean 300-350 KC-30 size aircraft, or 400-450 KC-767AT size aircraft based upon their KC-135R equivalency rates.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):
To be cheap, they should probably get a tactical tanker the size of the A320 / B737 and eliminate a lot of the noise about cargo capacity etc., there are so many of those a/c around and will be so for years to come.

Tankers of the 737/A320 size are next to useless except for air to air refueling training. They just don't have the range/offload capability needed, nor do they have the ability to hold on station long enough. They also create crewing issues, as you would need more of those frames for the same ability of the KC-135 (they have lower equivalency rates the the KC-135R), which means more crew than what they have now.

The USAF is buying tankers not for the day to day run of the mill type offload, it is buying them for large scale war conditions, even for maximum surge. If yo could guarantee that that war conditions or surge would not happen, you would not need many tankers at all, you would be able to get away with a commercial service.

A true tactical tanker is more of the C-130/A400M capability, you need to be able to refuel helicopters and turboprops.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:23 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
Tankers of the 737/A320 size are next to useless except for air to air refueling training.

For the current arsenal, perhaps. Just a few years from now there is going to be a growing demand in the next generation UCAV arena for aerial refueling. And a KC-30 or KC-767 might be a little over-kill. It will all depend on how big of a role UCAVs ultimately take on in the wars of the future.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:17 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 25):
But in the long run, excluding products with an Airbus content from competitions, and even more, stifling the growth of Airbus activities in the USA, will have the opposite effect.

Who said to exclude them. It is just that this deal with this level of content does not make any military or economic sense for the US. Why would we willingly weaken Boeing in return for assembling a few old transports.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 25):
But each step forward brings more and more of Airbus's intellectual capital and profits into the USA.

One would be a fool to think that Airbus will be anything but a European controlled company. BAE with far more American exposure still would not name an American as CEO nor allow for a majority of Americans to serve on the board. What makes you think EADS would?

When EADS decides to actually build design and build an airframe in the US I will then sit up and take notice. If NG builds KC-30s under license in the US I will take notice. Otherwise this is just a scam and you may as well "assemble" the tankers in Europe and fly them here for a paint job.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
At no point did the GAO say the the KC-30 or KC-767 did not meet requirements. Additionally their were mandatory requirements (KPP thresholds), and non mandatory requirements (like KPP objectives). The GAO in their finding uses the word "requirements" to mean both the mandatory and non mandatory.

Wrong again Zeke. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent what the GAO said? Here it is yet again in black and white:

Quote:
Third, we found that the record did not show that the Air Force
reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft could
refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker-compatible aircraft
using current Air Force procedures, as was required by the
solicitation.

Note Zeke, it says "AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE SOLICITATION". That means it was required and it did not meet it. But wait....... there's more Zeke

Quote:
Fifth, GAO found that the Air Force improperly accepted Northrop
Grumman's proposal, even though that firm took exception to a material
solicitation requirement.
[quote]

Did you see the "MATERIAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENT". Requirement - 1. something demanded or imposed as an obligation or 2. Something obligatory; a prerequisite.

Hope that help clear things up. EADS failed to meet at least two major requirements.

Lest you think that is all the GAO found wrong there are about 9 or 10 other major points that they found the Air Force screwed up. It's all here for all to read.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08991t.html

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Quoting Alien (Reply 21):
The Air Force did not contest that finding.

As the statement you made was false.

Wrong again Zeke. The Air Force did not contest the GAO's findings and the DOD directed them to start over again.


[quote=Zeke,reply=26]Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
They further clearly went on to say that if the Air Force had properly evaluated the entries that the Boeing entry had a very good chance of being selected.

Boeing would have had the same chance as before, 50/50. The footnote on the last page says "it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award", if you look at the case law they pointed to, "substantial chance" means "that it was within the zone of active consideration", it does not mean, as you assumed, higher than 50%.

More baloney from you Zeke. Here is what was said:

Quote:
In sum, GAO concluded from its review of the record that the Air Force
had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the
outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop
Grumman.

I continue to wonder why you persistently try to misrepresent the facts Zeke.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
Exactly the opposite is true! The GAO indicated minor points only.

Are you serious? read the direct quotes I provided. Go to the web site and read for yourself. There where a significant number of major errors in the evaluation process.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 27):
NG is totally irrelevant to you, all your posts over the last months have shown this.

Because NG is merely a front for EADS. They add virtually nothing. It may as well have been GE since it only due to the engines that the content is above 50%. NG does program management and system integration. No manufacturing. Even if NG had it's own entry it would change nothing. The Air Force screwed up the procurement process and it does not matter who makes the plane in this regard.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 32):
The only way someone other than Boeing to be in the mix would be for EADS to sell NG or LM the blueprints and production rights for an Airbus airplane with all fabrication and assembly in Alabama (NG) or Georgia (LM). That would be an "American" airplane under anyone's definition.

I am sure that Lockheed and NG given the right incentive by the government could design and build a large long range transport without too much difficulty. What is economically more beneficial, spending a few billion dollars extra to design and build locally or send 18 billion dollars offshore? Barring that, yes EADS willl have to license the production of the airframe here.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
It really isn't a case of simple "xenophobia".

If it was, BAE, for example. would not have made the inroads into the US defense business they have.

If it was, the future President of the United States would be flying a Sikorski and not a European-sourced helicopter.

And if it was, EADS would not have even been invited to bid for the KC-45 RFP, much less be chosen and remain the USAF's choice.

Excellent points. I would also add the army's new utility helicopter. People who claim this is all about xenophobia to me are nothing less than insulting.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
The USAF is looking for a new generation tanker, it is NOT looking for a KC-135E/R replacement,

Where are the studies that justify the need for this new more capable aircraft? All the original work called for the KC-X to be a KC-135 replacement. If the air force has now decided they want something different they have to justify it.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 36):
Where is NG in your story?

Where is NG in the KC-30. What part do they manufacture?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15146
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:28 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 23):

The Air Force then compounded the error by deciding to go ahead and try and ram through their new requirements under the old RFP.



Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
Wrong again Zeke. The Air Force did not contest the GAO's findings and the DOD directed them to start over again.

I agree that the USAF did not contest the GAO decision, nor did they have to. I did not say they did contest it.

The USAF/DoD did EXACTLY per the GAO decision (from the last page of the decision)

"We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision. If the Air Force believes that the RFP, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors."

The USAF/DoD followed that to the letter, they "amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions", the USAF made changed and released draft revision 6 of the RFP, and talked to both Boeing and NG.

It did ask them to start over.

Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent what the GAO said?

I have not misrepresented anything.

The ONLY agency that could determine the suitably or otherwise of aircraft meeting the requirements under the RFP was the USAF. The GAO said that "This decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies"

The people in the GAO may not even know the difference between a F-22 and a KC-135, they are legal specialist, they are not required to know anything about aviation. They are specialists in the procurement process, not aircraft technical details.

The the USAF said (from page 17 of the GAO decision)

"Both Offerors proposed to meet all KPP Thresholds. Both Offerors proposed capability beyond KPP Thresholds and offered significant trade space KSA capability. Additionally, both offered numerous non-KPP/KSA trade space capabilities deemed beneficial to the Government."

You are reading into the decision to suit your agenda, I wont bother going through each excerpt you presented as you have failed each time to comprehend in each occurrence what is being said.

E.g. "the record did not show that the Air Force reasonably determined" does not mean "did not meet the minimums required as set forth by the RFP", it means the GAO could not determine from they investigation sufficient "records" (read paper trail) to support the USAF position. Very different to what you claim it to mean.

I am more than happy to change my position is you can show me one place that GAO said either " did not meet the minimums required as set forth by the RFP" or "did not meet several of the minimum requirements for acceptance" or "their entry did not meet requirements"

BTW, neither aircraft had to meet all the requirements, e.g. the KC-767 could not fly 9,500nm unrefuelled, that was a non mandatory requirement (KPP Objective), but that did not mean that the KC-767AT did not meet the minimum requirements.

Could you clarify if you understand the difference between mandatory requirements, and non mandatory requirements, as the GAO uses the term requirements to mean both.

Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
More baloney from you Zeke. Here is what was said:

Quote:
In sum, GAO concluded from its review of the record that the Air Force
had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the
outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop
Grumman.

The operative word is could.

I could be killed tomorrow crossing the road, I could win mark 6 (the local lotto), that does not mean I will. Nor does that statement say that if the errors were not made, that the KC-767AT would (i.e. a certainty) have been selected.

We all knew from the outset that the KC-767AT could have won the competition, we also knew that the KC-30 could have won, both had a substantial chance, but no one knew for sure which would.

Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
Where are the studies that justify the need for this new more capable aircraft? All the original work called for the KC-X to be a KC-135 replacement. If the air force has now decided they want something different they have to justify it.

AMC has them, and they have been done. See if you can get your hands on the AMC white papers from them. Also have a look at the 2005 Mobility Compatability Study, and then you can also look at AMC Air Refueling Initial Capabilities Document, and the Air Mobility Master Plan.

The reason for getting rid of the KC-135 to their age, some are 40-50 years old, and do not have a lot of technology on them which the USAF now needs. One cannot replace a fleet of that size overnight, so you need to plan a replacement pathway.

If you look at the pathway I posted at the bottom of reply 38 for fighter/attack aircraft, it should be clear that one does need to replace an existing aircraft with one of the same size or capability. To state the obvious, the new generation fighter aircraft do not have the same size or capability as a P-51.

This is no different to what the did when they got the KC-135 to replace the KC-97. The USAF is looking for a new generation tanker, with new capabilites, those capabilities do not necessarily mean more/less fuel, or smaller/bigger, in fact the USAF does not care at all about the size/shape of the new generation tanker as long as it meets their requirements.

One of the major capabilites the tanker needed was the "net ready" capability, they needed aircraft near the front line that could act as airborne data link transfer stations that could relay information from new generation aircraft, UAVs, tanks, ships etc. The bandwidth being generated exceeds what the satellites can handles, and the tanker aircraft also have lower latency times.

Tankers are in an ideal position, they are often near the front line, and reasonably high, therefore they have a large footprint they can relay to/from.



Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
Where is NG in the KC-30. What part do they manufacture?

NG is doing the militarization of the aircraft.

NG is already on record saying that only 50% of the contract would be going to EADS North America (another American company), out of that 50% EADS has to build the facilities, buy components form US suppliers e.g. GE-engines, Honeywell-avionics, Vought-major wing components etc.

Your consistent assertions assuming that 60% US content of the NG big means 60% of the money stays in the US is false. The contract is for more than just aircraft, neither Boeing of NG have said what percentage of their bids are staying in the US, just the % US content of the airframes.

I know for a fact that Boeing were to procure their 767 simulators from outside of the US, and wing refueling pods from a UK company (via its US subsidiary), this dilutes the perception you have been trying to generate. Fact is, this is a global economy, and it does not matter who wins, billions of dollars will go offshore
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:10 am

That is an excellent post yet again Zeke. As always putting things in the correct perspective, and with proper documentation to back things up. Sadly some just do not want to understand because the truth is harm-full to their personal opinions.

Kind regards
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:02 pm

After all the work done by NG, EADS and others have done in specifying and finetuning the KC30 I think new customers will prefer the KC45 over the KC30.

Maybe the French Air Force will order it. They want to replace their KC135s. Maybe the Turks too and the Italians might be looking at ways to get rid of its troubled program. I wonder how the RAF and Saudi / UAE airforce are looking at the -F based tanker. Maybe they'll try to convert to the more potent variant..

With regards to Lockheed Martin, they would need time to come up with something new.



In the mean time they would have to strike a deal with other parties e.g. upgrading the existing tanker base, converting 767-300's, striking a deal with Boeing to supply / take in 100 767 tanker / freighters first, a combination or a similar deal with NG/EADS.

A short term capasity solution should be part of any new proposal I guess.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:52 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 42):
am sure that Lockheed and NG given the right incentive by the government could design and build a large long range transport without too much difficulty. What is economically more beneficial, spending a few billion dollars extra to design and build locally or send 18 billion dollars offshore? Barring that, yes EADS willl have to license the production of the airframe here.

A "few billion dollars extra" would kill any chance of anyone being competive form both time and economic viewpoints. Also, the now cancelled competition called for derivatives of commercial airplanes which would have ruled out any new ideas or participants.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:03 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 38):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):

That was partially true, Zeke. Originally Boeing did propose the re-engined KC-135E in their pre-bid proposals. But, when the formal KC-X bid was submitted by Boeing, all they proposed was the KC-767AT. It was PEMCO who formerly submitted the re-engined KC-135E bid as a formal proposal. The USAF never really considered that bid as serious, as the KC-747-8F bid that was submitted by that small SFO company.

Incorrect, what I said originally was correct, at the RFI stage (request for information), Boeing gave the USAF info on the three options. The RFI stage is to source from industry what is out there, what is possible before releasing the RFP, it is not an offer, it is simply trying to establish what options the government has. KC-135 re-engine program was an option they were aware of, as they had already been doing that, the KC-767AT and KC-777 were new to them. I am sure the KC-135 option would have include some avionics upgrades as well, to get the data links installed.

Again, partially correct. While you get it right that in the RFI stage, Boeing had three (they actually had four if you look at the KC-767A and KC-767AT as seperate proposals)proposals, in the RFP stage they only proposed the KC-767AT. The PEMCO proposed re-engined KC-135 package included the PACER CRAIG upgrade. The KC-135E/R/T as they sit today already have data links from the SMART TANKER program, AFSATCOM, and HAVE QUICK.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 38):
Also in terms of refueling, the new booms have a larger boom envelope than what the KC-135 can provide.

So does the current KC-10A, but what is your point here. There is no Boom compatable receiver in the inventory the KC-135 cannot refuel today. The size of the refueling envelope is receiver driven, not the Boom limitation driven. The maximum size of the KC-135 Boom Envelope is 12' in extension (based on a 30 degree down Boom trail below a wings level attitude( from 6.5' inner limit to 18.5' outer limit), from 20 degrees down elevation to 40 degrees down elevation (of the Boom), and 15 degrees left and right azmith. That is a hugh amount of airspace. Of course this is for receivers like the B-52, C-5, C-17, C-130, C-135s, E-3s, E-6s, etc. Fighters usually operate in a smaller envelope with upper limits about 25 degrees down and 10 degrees left and right.

The larger refueling envelope of the KC-767AT or KC-30B add nothing to the current refueling capabilities. Even future airplanes proposals do not exceed the limits of the KC-135 refueling envelope, and that includes a possible USAF version of the A-400M.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
KC-135s are being retired today, without any new frames joining the fleet, when the new generation tanker joins the fleet they will continue to retire them. It does not follow that they are waiting for the new tanker to "replace" KC-135s. What the air force has established it needs about 600 KC-135R equivalent aircraft, that would mean 300-350 KC-30 size aircraft, or 400-450 KC-767AT size aircraft based upon their KC-135R equivalency rates.

There are KC-135Es being retired, or put into flyable storage today. There are no replacements currently in the pipeline to replace this lost capability. As soon as the KC-135E bed down is completed (sometime before the end of this year), the total USAF refueling fleet will be down to approximately 450 KC-135R/T and 59 KC-10A tankers. That is an equivelent KC-135R fleet of just 556. You are right, the USAF needs a minimum of 600 equivelent KC-135Rs.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 43):
The people in the GAO may not even know the difference between a F-22 and a KC-135, they are legal specialist, they are not required to know anything about aviation. They are specialists in the procurement process, not aircraft technical details.

Actually, the GAO does hire consultants to work protests like this one. It was the GAO Consultants that figuered out the KC-30B could not refuel all UISAF receivers.
 
trex8
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:18 pm

isn't it ironic that while we are discussing the relative merits of each offering in terms of their "American" content, one manufacturer is being struck by its main production line union and one of the main sticking points is its refusal to stop stop manufacturing work going overseas!
 
LMP737
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:26 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):
With regards to Lockheed Martin, they would need time to come up with something new.

Given the current budget situation I seriously doubt the USAF would fund such a program.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Falcon16 and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos