Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:45 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
The KC-135E/R/T as they sit today already have data links from the SMART TANKER program, AFSATCOM, and HAVE QUICK.

But how integrated are they into the aircraft ? like the "SMART TANKER" is just a pallet loaded onto the aircraft, it could be loaded onto any aircraft (e.g. C-17/KC-10,/C-130), and it does not enhance the KC-135 at all.

It like putting a data link pod onto a fast jet, that does not hook up with the aircraft computers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
So does the current KC-10A

Are they that different ?

KC-135



KC-10



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
There is no Boom compatable receiver in the inventory the KC-135 cannot refuel today.

That does not even come close to reflect all the aircraft that have the capability to receive fuel.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
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.

See above

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
The larger refueling envelope of the KC-767AT or KC-30B add nothing to the current refueling capabilities.

The USAF disagrees.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
It was the GAO Consultants that figuered out the KC-30B could not refuel all UISAF receivers.

That is not my understanding. The USAF does not have one set of procedures for air to air refeulling, the procedures for the KC-135, KC-10, KC-130 are not the same, nor are the USAF procedures for the use of allied aircraft.

All the KC-X RFP asked for was to use the existing USAF procedures, it did not say KC-135 procedures as Boeing claimed in their protest.

BTW, as far as I am aware, the V-22 has not received its clearance from the KC-135 or KC-10.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:25 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 50):
That is not my understanding. The USAF does not have one set of procedures for air to air refeulling, the procedures for the KC-135, KC-10, KC-130 are not the same, nor are the USAF procedures for the use of allied aircraft.

All the KC-X RFP asked for was to use the existing USAF procedures, it did not say KC-135 procedures as Boeing claimed in their protest.

The GAO never claimed you had to use KC-135 procedures it said "air force refueling procedures". The KC-30 did not have the necessary performance to safely perform refueling operations will all aircraft types according to USAF refuleing procedures. Again a direct quotation from the GAO.

Quote:
During the procurement, the Air Force twice informed
Northrop Grumman that the proposed maximum operating velocity for that
firm's proposed aircraft would not be sufficient under current Air
Force procedures to achieve overrun speeds for various Air Force
aircraft.

Note it mentions nothing about KC-135s, KC-10s, KC-130's or other allied aircraft. It is organizational specific (USAF) but is not tanker specific.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 50):
BTW, as far as I am aware, the V-22 has not received its clearance from the KC-135 or KC-10.

And your point is?????
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:15 am

EPA001,

Quote:
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?

I'm not advocating a fraud-bidding proceedure. Fraud is illegal.

But don't you think it's ridiculous to have to go through this lengthly bidding process where a design you potentially don't want could end up winning the contract, and you could be stuck with it for 20-50 years? Wouldn't it be better to structure the process so that the design you want will win?

It's my opinion that Boeing is the design the USAF obviously wants and has gone to great machinations in order to get it. The plane exists already, tanker models have been made of the aircraft, even design elements to allow it to fly up to Mach 0.92 as part of USAF requirements. (Lockheed might be able to come up with something better, but they haven't produced any new transport aircraft recently, the C-141's been retired, the C-5 is too big... it would take a lot of money for them to develop a new plane to test it and iron out all the problems.)


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

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:35 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 52):
I'm not advocating a fraud-bidding proceedure. Fraud is illegal.

I am glad we agree on this!  

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 52):
But don't you think it's ridiculous to have to go through this lengthly bidding process where a design you potentially don't want could end up winning the contract, and you could be stuck with it for 20-50 years? Wouldn't it be better to structure the process so that the design you want will win?

Maybe it is but then you are killing the element of competition. And competition was and is what is needed to get the best value and product for your money.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 52):
It's my opinion that Boeing is the design the USAF obviously wants and has gone to great machinations in order to get it. The plane exists already, tanker models have been made of the aircraft, even design elements to allow it to fly up to Mach 0.92 as part of USAF requirements.

I am still under the distinct impression that the selected the NG-EADS proposed aircraft as the winner, thus the one they want. Maybe you accidentally switched the names of the aircraft they want?

And especially since Boeing pissed off several in the USAF, Boeings chances are maybe not that good, as it should be after behaving as such after they lost the bid. Boeings plane does not exist yet, the KC-30 in its present form is very close to what the USAF would be getting as a KC-45. And it is Boeing who has big problems (technical and with delivery schedules) with the Japanese and Italian B767-T versions. Also the pods on the wings are giving them great problems.

The KC-30 is performing flawlessly that we know of, although the plane is only in the end stages of full certification. So it is possible that there could still be problems when the aircraft has its EIS. That we have to wait for to maybe seing it happen.

Finally, the KC-30 is so much more capable then any B767-(A)T that we know of. And has a lot more further development potential over the years to come, as Airbus is continuesly working on improvements for the complete range of the A330/A340 family, with emphesys on the first mentioned plane of the family. It is clear to me that the USAF does not want the Boeing bid at all. Although I am sure that both companies/bids will have their supporters. If that is the situation here, and it is imho, then that will also be the case within the USAF. That also complicates things around this topic!

[Edited 2008-09-15 23:41:05]
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:46 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 52):
It's my opinion that Boeing is the design the USAF obviously wants and has gone to great machinations in order to get it. The plane exists already, tanker models have been made of the aircraft, even design elements to allow it to fly up to Mach 0.92 as part of USAF requirements

 covereyes 

- The USAF made explicitly clear what they want and why.
- The Proposed KC767 based tanker & boom exist on paper only.
- The existing KC767's have had severe high speed problems causing long delays.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:41 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 51):
The GAO never claimed you had to use KC-135 procedures it said "air force refueling procedures".

It would be evident I used the KC-135 in relation to Boeing submission, not the GAO decision. The RFP asked for "all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures", but the USAF informed the vendors compliance with the procedures means the flight manuals for the KC-135 and KC-10 tanker aircraft.

Quoting Alien (Reply 51):
The KC-30 did not have the necessary performance to safely perform refueling operations will all aircraft types according to USAF refuleing procedures.

The A330 and 767 have been certified for the same maximum speeds, 360KIAS/M086.

See page 2 of this FAA TCDS :

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...aa85256724005f886b/$FILE/a46nm.PDF

Quoting Alien (Reply 51):
Note it mentions nothing about KC-135s, KC-10s, KC-130's or other allied aircraft. It is organizational specific (USAF) but is not tanker specific.

Suggest you look at the notes at bottom of pages 38 & 39 then, as I seem to see KC-135 & KC-10 mentioned.

The RFP wording did not limit the "current USAF procedures" to the KC-10 or KC-135, it is wide an open, it could be any procedures involving any USAF aircraft, either as a tanker or receiver.

Quoting Alien (Reply 51):
And your point is?????

That was the "USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver" that people alleged that the KC-30 could not refuel. I had known it was doing clearance tests with the KC-10, but I have been of the understanding that it has not received its clearance yet.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:08 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
That was the "USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver" that people alleged that the KC-30 could not refuel.

As I understand it, the KC-30 is not capable of refueling the CV-22. It has been alleged the KC-30 may not be able to refuel the A-10 or C-130, either. I have not been able to confirm or deny the A-10 or C-130, especially the high drag index AC-130 refueling capability, yet.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
I had known it was doing clearance tests with the KC-10, but I have been of the understanding that it has not received its clearance yet.

Yes, the RAAF KC-30B has flown refueling proxcimity tests with both the USAF KC-135 and KC-10 (pre-contact position). It has not, yet, been flown into the contact position. The Booms of the KC-10 and KC-135 have not been lowered into the refueling positions, nor have the KC-30B pilot visibility tests of the tanker pilot director lights been started.

The receiver refueling certification of the KC-30B is still several months away. The tests I mentioned above were done in May of this year. I believe the test bed KC-30B is still undergoing RAAF modifications based on the earlier RAAF flight testing, so the airplane is still on the ground. All of this is normal for where the KC-30B is in the flight test program.

That is not to say the KC-30B flight test program is early, on time, or late in the flight test program. EADS and the RAAF have not been releasing to much information on the flight test schedule, other than to say the first airplane delivered to the RAAF (airplane # 2) will be delivered in Q1 or Q2 of 2009. Airplane #1 will be the third airplane delivered.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):
As I understand it, the KC-30 is not capable of refueling the CV-22.

If the heavier KC-10 could pass the fuel, see no reason why the KC-30 could not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):
It has been alleged the KC-30 may not be able to refuel the A-10 or C-130, either.

A-10 with 2 external tanks and 2 ECM PODS you would be looking at FL150/220KIAS, not a problem for the KC-30.

C-130, you would be looking at FL100/210 KIAS, and 190 KIAS for the AC-130. None this would be an issue if similar procedures are used as with the KC-130/10.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:18 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 57):
A-10 with 2 external tanks and 2 ECM PODS you would be looking at FL150/220KIAS, not a problem for the KC-30.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 57):
C-130, you would be looking at FL100/210 KIAS, and 190 KIAS for the AC-130.

Close, a full weapons loaded A-10 refuels at FL200B210, and as slow as 200KIAS. The C/AC-130 airspeed is right, but double the altitude.

The airplane (KC-30, KC-10, and KC-135) is not the reason it is difficult to refuel these slow receivers. All can fly at those speeds and altitudes, with a weight restriction (the KC-135 must be at 270,000lbs or less). The problem is the Boom. The Booms are designed to fly smoothly in high airspeeds, not low airspeeds, they become sloppy and slugish. The ruddervators on the EADS Boom are the same size (width and lenght, but probibly have a different cord) as those of the KC-135, and it appears the ruddervator trim tabs are about the same size. You will have the same, if not less aerodynamic with the KC-30 Boom as you do with the KC-135 Boom. Boom lenght will not help out here, but being a heavier Boom (on the KC-30), that may be a problem.

The Boeing Gen V Boom on the KC-767A/J seems to have longer and wider ruddervators, compared to the KC-135 Boom. I don't know if Boeing will use the newer ruddervators of the Gen V Boom when the flight test the KC-767AT Gen VI Boom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:12 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
You will have the same, if not less aerodynamic with the KC-30 Boom as you do with the KC-135 Boom. Boom lenght will not help out here, but being a heavier Boom (on the KC-30), that may be a problem.

That is why it is FBW. Just like the F-16, Typhoon, F-117 etc, the person flying it has no idea of all the corrections being applied to the control surfaces, they just drive the final outcome. As far as I was aware, the boom had completed its flights testing, having passed making wet contacts through the whole operational envelope.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:01 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 54):
The Proposed KC767 based tanker & boom exist on paper only

As does the KC-30 so your point is what?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 54):
The existing KC767's have had severe high speed problems causing long delays.

The existing KC767s are not the same desgin as the one that had been pitched to the USAF.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
It would be evident I used the KC-135 in relation to Boeing submission, not the GAO decision. The RFP asked for "all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures", but the USAF informed the vendors compliance with the procedures means the flight manuals for the KC-135 and KC-10 tanker aircraft.

Whatever are you talking about. It is clear the Air Force said using current USAF refueling procedures. The GAO found that the KC-30 cannot refuel all current and contemplated aircraft using those procedures. In other words the KC-30 does not meet minimum specifications. It really is that simple.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
The A330 and 767 have been certified for the same maximum speeds, 360KIAS/M086.

See page 2 of this FAA TCDS :

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...aa85256724005f886b/$FILE/a46nm.PDF

Nice try but again you stoop to subterfuge to try and prove a point. First we are not talking about A330s and B767s but KC-30s and KC-767. They trail refueling booms and have wing mounted pods for drogues. Their flight characteristics may be similar to their civilian brethren but they are not the same. Second If you read the accounts and review break away procedures you will see (as you very well know) that max speed in a dive, max stable (Vfo) speed as well as aircraft acceleration where the factors used to determine suitability for safely refueling aircraft using USAF procedures. In short it is meaningless that the civilian A330 and B767 have the same operating speed limit. It's how fast they can get away from an aircraft in case of emergency that matters. Specifically the A330s dive speed is currently limited to 365 KIAS and the 767 limit is much higher (410 - 420 KIAS).



Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
Suggest you look at the notes at bottom of pages 38 & 39 then, as I seem to see KC-135 & KC-10 mentioned.

The RFP wording did not limit the "current USAF procedures" to the KC-10 or KC-135, it is wide an open, it could be any procedures involving any USAF aircraft, either as a tanker or receiver.

Well I guess the GAO disagrees with you. They referenced the KC-135 and KC-10 flight manuals which have the minimum separation rate for all aircraft. Those minimum rates are the same for all tankers within the USAF whether they are KC-10s, KC-135s or any other tanker the USAF operates. Further, the USAF expressly told NG that the flight manuals for the KC-10 and KC-135 establish the current procedures for USAF refueling operations. Yet again you resort to subterfuge.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:15 am

I have the feeling we are seeing a superior offering on almost all requirements but are desperately trying to cling on a few specs that are unclear / unknown and try to build a case on them, ignoring the big picture as much as possible.

I think a good result sofar is that Boeing didn't get away with forcing a dated product upon the US Air Force, no matter how much PR / political strawman / xenophobic nationalism they used. For the next 50 yrs they'll probably have a more capable product they they were ordered to order in 2002.

Regardless of the type selected I think the KC-X should have

- newest generation engines ensuring wide industry support for the next 40 yrs
- pacific payload / range capability
- serious cargo capasity to enforce global logistic capabilities
- max compatibility with current and future US and allied forces
- good cockpit commonality with large US pilot groups
- guaranteed long term supply chain for engines, components and mods
- build in structural flexibility for future mods / new versions
- political / emotional back-up
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:17 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
The GAO found that the KC-30 cannot refuel all current and contemplated aircraft using those procedures.

The GAO never said any such thing. What the GAO said is they could not find "records" to support the USAF decision on that part. It does not mean the aircraft lacked that capability.

from page 41

"From this record, we cannot conclude that the Air Force reasonably evaluated the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to satisfy the KPP threshold requirement to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures. The contemporaneous record, as explained by the hearing testimony, does not establish that the Air Force understood Northrop Grumman’s response in discussions concerning its ability to satisfy the solicitation requirements, nor does it demonstrate that the agency had a reasonable basis upon which to accept Northrop Grumman’s promises of compliance."

The GAO does not make "determinations" on the capability/performance of the tenders, its role was to review the USAF process and procedures.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
Nice try but again you stoop to subterfuge to try and prove a point.

No smoke and mirrors at all, that is the FAA website with a FAA A330 TCDS.

Boeings submission to the GAO used an A330 TCDS data to establish that the KC-30 had a maximum speed of 330 KIAS, and was unable to performance common breakaway procedures for the fast jets which require a level acceleration to 350 KIAS.

You have just agreed with me that the A330 is capable of achieving 360 KIAS (the same as the 767), so that part of the GAO decision needs no more discussion.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
They trail refueling booms and have wing mounted pods for drogues. Their flight characteristics may be similar to their civilian brethren but they are not the same.

The flight characteristics should be virtually identical, that is what the certification process is all about. The wing pods are not really all that different to adding external stores, and the boom itself sits within the boundary layer most of the time.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
Second If you read the accounts and review break away procedures you will see (as you very well know) that max speed in a dive, max stable (Vfo) speed as well as aircraft acceleration where the factors used to determine suitability for safely refueling aircraft using USAF procedures.

I don't get your point about a Vmo/Mmo dive, or what the flap operating speed has to do with things.

Breakaway procedures vary a little between the type of tanker (boom or non boom). The tanker would normally initially maintain heading, speed, and altitude, what happens next depends on the type of tanker. The procedures for the tanker normally involve acceleration in level flight, or a slight climb, but not a dive.

I have seen the AAR clearance procedures, I cannot recall ever seeing what you are suggesting.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
Specifically the A330s dive speed is currently limited to 365 KIAS and the 767 limit is much higher (410 - 420 KIAS).

The design dive speed of the 767 is M0.91, the A330 is M0.93

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
They referenced the KC-135 and KC-10 flight manuals which have the minimum separation rate for all aircraft.

Can you make you mind up !!! that is a 180 degree flip from your previous post !!

Quoting Alien (Reply 51):
Note it mentions nothing about KC-135s, KC-10s, KC-130's or other allied aircraft. It is organizational specific (USAF) but is not tanker specific.

You have gone from "mentions nothing about KC-135s, KC-10s" to "They referenced the KC-135 and KC-10 flight manuals". The GAO would be limited in their ability to referring to a flight manual. They would defer that to information sourced from the USAF, or the Boeing consultants/witnesses. The GAO have no/little aviation expertise, they are legal professionals.

At the end of the day, the only thing that mattered was what was in the RFP, which did not limit the USAF procedures that could be used.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
Further, the USAF expressly told NG that the flight manuals for the KC-10 and KC-135 establish the current procedures for USAF refueling operations.

This is what the SRD actually said :

"3.2.10.1.1.9 The aircraft shall be capable of aerial refueling all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures with no modification to existing receiver aerial refueling equipment and no degradation to the receiver aircraft refueling capability, including after-body effects for wide-body aircraft and fuel temperature, and in accordance with international standards (e.g., Standard Agreement (STANAG) 3971 and STANAG 3447), and taking into account established technical guidance (e.g., MIL-A-87166, JSSG 2009) (THRESHOLD, KPP #1)."

The USAF also expressly told Boeing that extra credit would be given for exceeding the refuel offload during briefings, but the GAO ruled that you cannot go by the briefings, you have to go by the letter of the RFP document.

So which is it that you are advocating as being the higher priority, the RFP document, or the briefings ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:28 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Boeings submission to the GAO used an A330 TCDS data to establish that the KC-30 had a maximum speed of 330 KIAS, and was unable to performance common breakaway procedures for the fast jets which require a level acceleration to 350 KIAS.

You have just agreed with me that the A330 is capable of achieving 360 KIAS (the same as the 767), so that part of the GAO decision needs no more discussion.

Quoting Alien (Reply 60):
They trail refueling booms and have wing mounted pods for drogues. Their flight characteristics may be similar to their civilian brethren but they are not the same.

The flight characteristics should be virtually identical, that is what the certification process is all about. The wing pods are not really all that different to adding external stores, and the boom itself sits within the boundary layer most of the time.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 62):
Breakaway procedures vary a little between the type of tanker (boom or non boom). The tanker would normally initially maintain heading, speed, and altitude, what happens next depends on the type of tanker. The procedures for the tanker normally involve acceleration in level flight, or a slight climb, but not a dive.

There may be some legalize here..... The USAF did not dispute the Boeing suggestion of limiting airspeed of the KC-30 to the GAO. Why?

While the A-330 and B-767 can both accelerate to 360 KIAS, what can both types do in the KC-30 or KC-767 configuerations? If they can still accelerste to 360 KIAS, how quickly can they do it from a fast mover refueling airspeed of 335 KIAS?

The breakaway 350 KIAS is set in stone, that cannot be changed. Either the airplanes (in a tanker configueration) can do it, or they cannot. During a breakaway, the tanker would normally have the Boom in the trail position. The Boom Operator will disconnect then move the Boom away from the receiver, and if possible fly it into a more streamlined position to eliminate as much drag as possible. When the two airplanes have enough clearance from each other, the Boom Operator will clear the tanker to climb. During the breakaway, the tanker Pilot will advance the throttles as much as practical, pickle off the auto pilot, accelerate straight ahead, initially, then climb at a minimum of 1000' per minute upon the command of the Boom Operator. The objective is both horizontial and vertical seperation.

If the tanker and receiver are in a turn when a breakaway is called, the tanker continues the turn while the receiver rolls wings level.




If the tanker is the receiver, upon a breakaway call, the Pilot will disconnect the refueling receptical toggles retard the throttles to idle and dive while slowing the airplane.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:27 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
The USAF did not dispute the Boeing suggestion of limiting airspeed of the KC-30 to the GAO. Why?

With the GAO process, all the USAF can use is information they used during the RFP process. They cannot seek new information from NG (i.e. they cannot reopen discussions with either NG or Boeing). On the other hand, Boeing were able to use their paid witnesses and consultants to give evidence to the GAO, it was their coin, their protest.

The GAO is not in the business of working out technical details of any aircraft, tank, bomb, ship etc, it is looking at the process and procedures.

From their investigation, and from the evidence that Boeing presented, they were unable to find records that support the USAF position. That is their job, looking at the process and procedures.

What this comes down to is the current FAA TCDS that the Boeing consultants used as evidence to the GAO has a Vmo/Mmo of 330KIAS/M0.86, but as I have shown previous versions have had 360KIAS/M0.86, and is actuality still like that in some countries like Brazil. TCDS are issued generally for every state the aircraft is registered in, in some countries all they do is a "type acceptance" of the TCDS from the country of manufacture.

Vmo/Mmo is mainly determined by flutter requirements under FAR 25. The flutter certification rules have essentially remained unchanged since the A330 was certified.

To put this another way, you could have a US registered A330 sitting next to a Brazil registered A330, the US registered aircraft would have a Vmo/Mmo of 330KIAS/M0.86, the Brazil registered aircraft would be 360 KIAS/M0.86. For an airliner, Vmo is not important, there is no civil benefit for Airbus to increase the Vmo under the FAA TCDS.

This sort of difference between ICAO states on the TCDS contents is very common, for both large and small aircraft.

This in my view was an obvious play to spoil the contract, Boeing knows that the TCDS contents do not represent the maximum limits that the aircraft can achieve, when it was certified for higher speeds y the FAA previously. But the evidence they put forward put doubt into the USAF process and procedures.

FYI, the KC-30 already flew faster than 360 KIAS earlier in 2008 as part of the civil certification verification process. This is a common test done for every aircraft leaving the factory, it is part of the over speed protection flight testing.
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

Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:05 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
This in my view was an obvious play to spoil the contract, Boeing knows that the TCDS contents do not represent the maximum limits that the aircraft can achieve, when it was certified for higher speeds y the FAA previously. But the evidence they put forward put doubt into the USAF process and procedures.

Again an excellent post Zeke!

We all know Boeing cooked up a lot of things in their GAO protest, where they submitted at least 100+ points. This is one of the ways how they reached their goal, to have the GAO rule in favor of them. And again, submitting the case like that to the GAO, which has no knowledge of planes at all, even when Boeing knew they were basically telling lies, proves how far they went to still overturn the USAF decision. All means were allowed here. But in the end the GAO ruling was a major disappointment to them with only 8 minor points upheld in the total of thousands of pages of documentation for this RFP.

True the GAO did find some things which needed to be adjusted in the RFP, but in the end they were practically insignificant. So, the USAF basically fixed the RFP in no time.

When the RFP became GAO proof, Boeing then played another political card, the delay tactics which in the end resulted in what they hoped the GAO would do. Namely, force such a delay on the program that a complete new round in the process is necessary instead of the quick fixes only that the USAF had to make after the GAO ruling.

Now they have succeeded, but no one can claim that they played the game fair and square! Maybe (probably?) NG-EADS bend some things or procedures as well, although no evidence has been presented to support my assumption, especially not by Boeing! But I doubt if NG-EADS would ever go so low to get a win with an inferior offering to the USAF!
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:03 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
Now they have succeeded, but no one can claim that they played the game fair and square! Maybe (probably?) NG-EADS bend some things or procedures as well, although no evidence has been presented to support my assumption, especially not by Boeing! But I doubt if NG-EADS would ever go so low to get a win with an inferior offering to the USAF!

Give me a break, NG/EADS took their best shot and so did Boeing. There is nothing involved here but money and influence peddling on both sides to sell their product and make money. Those eight points was enough. We have a new and maybe a more fair contest coming. Time will tell.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:15 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
We all know Boeing cooked up a lot of things in their GAO protest, where they submitted at least 100+ points.

I don't think Boeing "cooked" a lot of things, they threw a lot at the GAO hoping some would stick. Any Boeing shareholder should expect the company to fight to the best of its ability to prevent the competition form entering the market.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
And again, submitting the case like that to the GAO, which has no knowledge of planes at all, even when Boeing knew they were basically telling lies, proves how far they went to still overturn the USAF decision.

I think Boeing has become very GAO savvy with the number of times it has been before they GAO in recent years, it knows how it works, and knows what to look for.

Boeing did not tell lies, just the selective truth, all they had to demonstrate really was an element of doubt. Just like the submissions from both NG and Boeing to the USAF would have tried to put their products in the best light. Boeing tried to put the decision of the USAF in the worst light, and to nit pick every aspect.

Got to remember that the "KC-30A" or KC-767AT" was not on "trial" here, all Boeing had to demonstrate was that the USAF did not bullet proof the selection process, that could be in the form of interpretation of the RFP documents, or the paper trail that the USAF used to make the decision.

The Boeing team would have look at the whole process, pre RFP, during the RFP, and the USAF decision and debrief, and successfully found ways to convince the GAO that it was not bullet proof.

It is not Boeing's fault that they could identify issues, nor was it really NG fault either. The USAF just did not ask the right questions or say the right things at the right time, to get the right answers on paper that would satisfy the GAO.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:42 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
We all know Boeing cooked up a lot of things in their GAO protest, where they submitted at least 100+ points. This is one of the ways how they reached their goal, to have the GAO rule in favor of them. And again, submitting the case like that to the GAO, which has no knowledge of planes at all, even when Boeing knew they were basically telling lies, proves how far they went to still overturn the USAF decision. All means were allowed here. But in the end the GAO ruling was a major disappointment to them with only 8 minor points upheld in the total of thousands of pages of documentation for this RFP.

Boeing also knew that any protest filed with the GAO was a very long shot at best. Almost every GAO filing by someone has 100s of points in their protest. Less than 3% of all filings are upheld by the GAO, that means more than 97% of the filed protests fail. Boeing "cooked" nothing. They felt then, and still feel they had the best offering, just as NG feels they have the best offering. Boeing did not "lie" about anything. The GAO has access to professional consultants in fields they are not experts in. In this case, they did use consultants, as well as their own expertise in the bidding process.

Would you have been happier if Boeing only file 8 points in their protest to the GAO, and the GAO upheld all 8 of them?

BTW, here are some of the people who represnted Boeing, NG, and the USAF in the GAO protest:

Lynda Guild Simpson, Esq., and Stephen J. Curran, Esq., The Boeing Company, for the protester.

Rogers Joseph O’Donnell; and Joseph O. Costello, Esq., Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, for the intervenor.

Bryan R. O’Boyle, Esq., Col. Neil S. Whiteman, James A. Hughes, Esq., Col. Timothy Cothrel, Robert Balcerek, Esq., Maj. Christopher L. McMahon, W. Michael Rose, Esq., Stewart L. Noel, Esq., Gerald L. Trepkowski, Esq., Lynda Troutman O’Sullivan, Esq., John J. Thrasher III, Esq., Lt. Col. Thomas F. Doyon, Anthony P. Dattilo, Esq., Bridget E. Lyons, Esq., John R. Hart, Esq., Ronald G. Schumann, Esq., Maj. Steven M. Sollinger, Maj. Sandra M. DeBalzo, and John M. Taffany, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
True the GAO did find some things which needed to be adjusted in the RFP, but in the end they were practically insignificant. So, the USAF basically fixed the RFP in no time.

"Practically insignificant"????? Hello, the major items of the protest was not the RFI/RFP, it was the selection process the USAF used, and how they conducted it. That is why the DOD took the selection process away from the USAF, the DOD felt the USAF did not fix the process.

Did you ever read the GAO report? If not, here it is.

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

Later the DOD cancelled the entire program. I doubt Boeing's request for more time had much to do with that decision. My guess is there are still issues and problems with the entire process where the DOD must rely on the USAF for expertise in tanker operations. One of those problems appears to be the selection seems to have been made on inputs from some Pilots, and disguarding opinions of Tanker Pilots. Additionally, there was no input allowed by HQ USAF, from Boom Operators. After all, the sole reason for tankers to fly is not the pilot mission, it is the Boom Operator mission, whether that is refueling or cargo.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:33 pm

I wouldn't be suprized if Boeing figured -- If they can't win on the tanker, they can go through all sorts of legal maneuvers until they won, or simply get the program cancelled.

Ever heard the old saying "If I can't have it, nobody will"?


Blackbird
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:54 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 69):
I wouldn't be suprized if Boeing figured -- If they can't win on the tanker, they can go through all sorts of legal maneuvers until they won, or simply get the program cancelled.

Ever heard the old saying "If I can't have it, nobody will"?

No a good way to support your long time #1 customer, country, national air force & front line fighter it seems.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:17 pm

Keesje,

I'm not 100% sure if the tanker program was deliberately scuttled by Boeing if they couldn't win it... It is a speculation.


Blackbird
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:40 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
"Practically insignificant"????? Hello, the major items of the protest was not the RFI/RFP, it was the selection process the USAF used, and how they conducted it. That is why the DOD took the selection process away from the USAF, the DOD felt the USAF did not fix the process.

They were insignificant, nothing the GAO picked up on was to do with mandatory requirements. John Young in his interview to the WSJ basically said that the whole RFP process is flawed, not just the KC-X RFP. He said, "Frankly, the circumstances and course of events are rewarding bad behavior, which cannot become the norm for defense acquisition."

We know who those remarks are leveled at.

The USAF has to work within a set of laws, so does the GAO. During the GAO protest for example, the GAO is not allowed to gather "new" evidence.

The GAO found a number of areas where the USAF records regarding the decisions they made were not sufficient to justify their position. In my view the GAO should be able to allow the USAF to go back and "Dot the i's and cross the t's", the GAO wold still be doing its job with the checks and balances, but it would stop companies making frivolous claims to the GAO to spoil a contract process that took years, and cost millions.

I have seen nothing yet from Boeing that would suggest they still could have come to the party with a better frame than the KC-30, but they have spoiled the process, with what in my view is an abuse of process.

Richard Shelby took a big swipe at the behavior of some in the Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/22/rigged-in-boeings-favor/

"When this latest competition began in 2007, there was no uproar over a full and open competition for any company that could build a tanker. No politician complained or wailed that the Europeans might win the contract or that the process was unfair to Boeing. No one grabbed a podium or scheduled a press conference to declare that the tanker contract should be a sole source to Boeing. Why? Because everyone believed that Boeing would win, no doubt about it. "

"It is now clear that acquiring the best tanker for the war fighter was less important than saving Boeing jobs. "

"We are now jeopardizing the safety and security of our nation and those who fight for it simply because politics trumped logic, fairness and concern for the troops.

Terminating the tanker competition sent a clear message - that competition is fine, as long as Boeing wins."
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

Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:49 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
They were insignificant, nothing the GAO picked up on was to do with mandatory requirements. John Young in his interview to the WSJ basically said that the whole RFP process is flawed, not just the KC-X RFP. He said, "Frankly, the circumstances and course of events are rewarding bad behavior, which cannot become the norm for defense acquisition."

Yup, as you and I have stated before. That the DOD took the process away from the USAF had nothing to do with how the process was conducted. It was a political statement to rebuild the trust in the selection process. This trust was significantly damaged by the Boeing media campaign. That the GAO did find a few relatively minor technicalities (8 out of the more then 100 complaints filed by Boeing) that were easily corrected by the USAF, did not help the public to keep a good feeling about this process.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
I have seen nothing yet from Boeing that would suggest they still could have come to the party with a better frame than the KC-30, but they have spoiled the process, with what in my view is an abuse of process.

Totally correct! After they lost I have not seen anything which looks like constructive behaviour of Boeing in this department. They have tried everything to sabotage this issue, in which they succeeded in the end! The media campaign which was full of lies with "right size" and "we were lead to believe bla bla", and in which they cried foul like a baby, was in the end very effective! If you can not win on merits, make sure that you do not loose in the end. Even after you lost the first round!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
Terminating the tanker competition sent a clear message - that competition is fine, as long as Boeing wins

I have stated that several times in the several posts about this topic. It keeps coming up which must mean that there is some truth in that statement to find! Funny that some in the US, and I specifically say SOME in the US since I do not want to generalize the whole US population, are afraid of competition. And become xenophobic about it even when the competition comes from another US company who joined forces with EADS and GE!

It looks more like the fact that these people are Airbus-phobic. Because even with NG being the prime contractor here, and EADS-USA and GE as subcontractors, many protesters and also many posters here keep referring to Airbus as a company which "lost", etc, etc. Even when Airbus is a company settled mostly in US friendly nations, and even with EADS being the single largest customer of US aviation based companies, many people sadly enough still think this way. I would call that "strange and irrational behaviour". Just my two cents!

[Edited 2008-09-23 01:00:09]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:41 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
I have stated that several times in the several posts about this topic. It keeps coming up which must mean that there is some truth in that statement to find! Funny that some in the US, and I specifically say SOME in the US since I do not want to generalize the whole US population, are afraid of competition. And become xenophobic about it even when the competition comes from another US company who joined forces with EADS and GE!

To go overboard I guess a good question is why the US Military never bought any products from the EU since they are so xenophobic, come on people, if the discussion is to get to a better level these type of comments will not fly. If we go along with the rhetoric, the President of the United States will be arriving onboard a EU helicopter when the new Marine One is commissioned, and the frames will have others uses as well, how does this gell with your comments above, adding other military items the US uses from Europe will only cloud the issue.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 40):
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.

I have one other comment with this idea, if this was really the case the US Air Force would have written a RFP for a new build a/c, initial stipulation that the a/c should be off the shelf basically meant that it would be a single source contract, as no two manufacturers have competing a/c, there is no way to balance the two, this has been proven.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 20):
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.

So the rewite essentially went the other way, rather than EADS being in a no win situation, Boeing was put in a no win situation, whats the difference? If as stated over and over again that the A330 is a superior platform to the B-767, how can you have a fair competition between them, paying lip service to the Boeing entry is not competition. Once the re-write was done, the Air Force should have done what they initially did, single source 100 frames, if they are the experts we all claim them to be, they had to know from day one of the re-write that there could be only one winner. The US uses a lot of military equipment from Europe, they just got their commander in chief on a European product, so where would the complaints have come from, the tax payers, that would have been a better fight for the Air Force than the "farce" - my term - that they came up with.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:11 pm



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.

One of which is adjacent to their proposed production facility at BFM in Mobile! Upon winning the contract, they expect to expand their scope there.

Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
I find it far preferable to use my tax dollars to keep fellow Americans building wings than people in Wales.

How many times does it have to be said? I will remind you that Mobile, Alabama and Melbourne, Florida (the two primary centers for the assembly and engineering of the KC-30) are AMERICAN CITIES!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:49 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
This trust was significantly damaged by the Boeing media campaign.

Not sure why you are saying this. Seems to me NG/EADS ran an even more vigorous media compaign, with all those retired generals, etc.

Members of Congress who backed Boeing seemed to get better media coverage, but they were the "aggrieved party", which always gets better play in the press.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
That the GAO did find a few relatively minor technicalities (8 out of the more then 100 complaints filed by Boeing) that were easily corrected by the USAF, did not help the public to keep a good feeling about this process.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
It keeps coming up which must mean that there is some truth in that statement to find!

You keep saying the same old thing over and over again, hoping it will gain some purchase, but it does not.

Boeing's protest, be it 100 or 1000 or 10000 points long caused GAO to ask the USAF to re-issue the RFP, which only happens in rare cases. And once the DoD looked into the case, it took the procurement away from the USAF, which is unheard of. You can say this was not significant over and over again, but you will be wrong over and over again.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
Funny that some in the US, and I specifically say SOME in the US since I do not want to generalize the whole US population, are afraid of competition.

And funny about how some in the EU population are afraid of competition, like on the A400M engines. So, let's not assign nationalism as a unique property of either party.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:14 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
To go overboard I guess a good question is why the US Military never bought any products from the EU since they are so xenophobic, come on people, if the discussion is to get to a better level these type of comments will not fly. If we go along with the rhetoric, the President of the United States will be arriving onboard a EU helicopter when the new Marine One is commissioned, and the frames will have others uses as well, how does this gell with your comments above, adding other military items the US uses from Europe will only cloud the issue.

I never said that the US military are xenophobic. That is twisting my words into something I never said! In such a way discussions on this forum, or anywhere else, should not be held.

I wrote in capital letters SOME in the US, and I do that again now. And I wrote that I would not like to generalize the US population. Because I know better then that. There are many sensible Americans, just as there are sensible Europeans or any other people. And in the US and Europe or anywhere else are just about as many people who do not want to be, or are not sensible. There will not be that much difference in that, no matter where you look in the world.

And please, where did I ever state in all my posts on this subject that the US military never bought products from the EU? Again, twisting words that I even never have written. I have written though that generally the US exports more military products to the EU then the other way around. By that statement I stand.

And even the fact that this is the case does not even bother me that much. It is impossible to have that evenly balanced anyway, so I will not even try to see that as a negative thing. And many of the US military products that European countries do buy, especially also my country, are very good. I have written that also several times in multiple posts. I repeat it to make my position on this topic, which is still unchanged since the initial award of the contract to NG-EADS in February, clear to you or anyone else.

If you would read and write a bit more carefully, de-railings in these discussions as your attempt to twist my words is, would not happen. Sorry that I have to put it this way. But I do not find other words right now to describe the situation.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
So the rewite essentially went the other way, rather than EADS being in a no win situation, Boeing was put in a no win situation, whats the difference?

The original process started many years ago with only a B767 platform in mind. The original RFP on which this latest one is based was initially still tailor made for that airframe. The adjustments made gave more room for both aircraft, although it clearly still had more of a B767 signature then an A330 signature. I am convinced that Boeing thought so too since they never expected that they could ever loose! But that another bid could get a chance at winning the RFP was the only change made when the latest RFP was issued. This latest change was demanded by NG-EADS. That is very much true.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
Not sure why you are saying this. Seems to me NG/EADS ran an even more vigorous media campaign, with all those retired generals, etc.

I guess I have to disagree with you respectfully on this issue. What I have noticed was that the Boeing campaign was of a much higher profile. But as you can see I live in Europe, so I do not get to see as much of such campaigns as Americans would see. So maybe you are right, but I can not confirm that since I have different experiences. So I have to disagree with you Big grin.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
And funny about how some in the EU population are afraid of competition, like on the A400M engines. So, let's not assign nationalism as a unique property of either party.

Oh, I never said that this was a "quality" which only Americans have. You can search all my posts over this topic on A-net or anywhere else, but you will never see me making such a statement. There are just enough or too much of the nationalistic ones disliking competition in Europe as well. I presume in all the other parts in the world it could be the same!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:20 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
So the rewite essentially went the other way, rather than EADS being in a no win situation, Boeing was put in a no win situation, whats the difference?

That is what Boeing and its supporters want everybody to believe and they effective managed that perception. On this site it has been endlessly proved to be not the case, but we are still talking perception..

Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
Once the re-write was done, the Air Force should have done what they initially did, single source 100 frames, if they are the experts we all claim them to be, they had to know from day one of the re-write that there could be only one winner.

Of course they knew. The strategy was to play the political / public / patriotic card effectively.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:22 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):
Of course they knew. The strategy was to play the political / public / patriotic card effectively.

How does this response work with this first line?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):
That is what Boeing and its supporters want everybody to believe and they effective managed that perception. On this site it has been endlessly proved to be not the case, but we are still talking perception..



Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
Funny that some in the US, and I specifically say SOME in the US since I do not want to generalize the whole US population, are afraid of competition. And become xenophobic about it even when the competition comes from another US company who joined forces with EADS and GE!



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 77):
I never said that the US military are xenophobic. That is twisting my words into something I never said! In such a way discussions on this forum, or anywhere else, should not be held.

Sorry if you believe that I was trying to twist your words, was not my intention.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
It keeps coming up which must mean that there is some truth in that statement to find! Funny that some in the US, and I specifically say SOME in the US since I do not want to generalize the whole US population, are afraid of competition

This is a general statement for any country, EADS ensured that PW Canada did not get the engine for the A400, EADS ensuring that Spirit did not get any factories from the Power 8, no country naturally want to give its business to a foreign country, we all know that, so you will have to forgive me if I thought that more than that was meant, if not it goes unsaid.
Apologies if you are offended by that.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:41 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 79):
no country naturally want to give its business to a foreign country, we all know that,

That is an important point about perception. The reality here in the US is that we have seen millions of civilian jobs go to other countries and with the complicity of the US Government and US Business. Meanwhile most of us had the perception that at least our defense indusry was safe. We then find out that a giant contract for USAF tankers was awarded to a US/European partnership that was to do a great amount of that work overseas, just like the civilian jobs that have been given away to other countries, that dashed the perception of the defense indusry jobs being safe. With the addition of the political interference, and lobbying and other irregularities in the process, it caught media attention and then the publics. Then our politicians and of course Boeing. The rest we all know and are still discussing who got screwed in the flawed process. Where there is smoke there is fire usually and the GAO ruled that there was enough evidence to uphold Boeings protest. whether there was 8 point or 100, it was enough.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:04 am

I think it is about perception and emotions

The 787 will largely be build else where and assembled in the US, just like a KC30.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:12 pm

Looks like Gates has gone back to the lowest bidder method:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/ap_gates_tanker_092308/

This method actually produces one of the highest total program cost, but as we have seen, the alternative becomes to political for anyone to handle.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:00 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 82):
This method actually produces one of the highest total program cost, but as we have seen, the alternative becomes to political for anyone to handle.

The A330 is a more expensive frame than the B-767 in it's base form, all Boeing would have to do is revert to its original model or a variant that Italy and Japan have, which is a lighter and smaller a/c, and probably cheaper to build, NG/EADS will either have to protest, gets its additional size and strengths credited as an offset, or bid under cost, caveat being that you can make up the difference in delays, overruns etc. when no one is looking, does this not put us back to square one with the same ole same ole?

Why don't the professionals in the Air Force and DOD just single source the a/c then go to bat on the Hill, there is enough data from both OEM's to back up any a/c they select, this does not have to go to a bid. Whether single source or bid, the price goes up, delays during build, specs get changed during production, etc. etc. so the idea that the bid process will keep the cost down via competition is really a myth in the military sector, civilian sector is the reverse.
 
mikesbucky
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:17 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:25 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 70):
No a good way to support your long time #1 customer, country, national air force & front line fighter it seems.

This is my first time trying to use the quote feature so I apologize if I got it wrong. Keesje, how do you see the USAF as Boeing's number 1 customer? The USAF hasn't been the sole prime contractor on any Boeing product with the exception of some 89thAW aircraft in decades. The C-17 and F-15 were MD, the B-1 was Rockwell, the F-22 was a joint venture with LM and General Dynamics and the Boeing content of the aircraft is a third at best. The CV-22 is the Bell subsidiary and only being purchased in small numbers for AFSOC. The Army and Navy are bigger customers for Boeing recently, especially with the Chinooks, P8s and F/A-18s (although the later is also of MD origin). Boeing bought Rockwell and MD to try to get back into the defense business and have pretty much failed miserably as far as the USAF is concerned. The kicker is that of the programs where the USAF has been buying the aforementioned aircraft, none are going to be around much longer. The C-17 line only has a few orders left with not really good prospects for more. The F-22 production is also rapidly coming to an end. The B-1 has long ago left the building and the F-15 is only getting token orders from our far east allies. I feel the reason Boeing is pulling out all the stops in the protest is that they know without the tanker deal that the IDS division is in serious trouble. Combine that with the ongoing and increasingly bitter IAM strike and the 787 problems and one could speculate that the whole company is in trouble, at least in its position as a major aerospace company. That backlog of 737s and 787s could shrink very rapidly in the current airline environment.

Boeing's mistake was in offering an older aircraft, but they really were in a no win scenario. Much of it of their own making. If the original 767 lease deal was on the up and up they wouldn't be in the situation they find themselves in now. Once that scandal broke they were in deep trouble because EADS had time to create a better offering. While some may feel that NG/EADS will not even bother to rebid because they feel like they got screwed in this latest round, I think they would be crazy not to. The new RFP will more then likely spell out the KC-30 specifications in a way that the KC-767 will not even be remotely competitive and force Boeing to try a KC-787. Something they have neither the time nor resources for.

Boeing has lost the fighter to LM, the bomber to NG, and the tanker to EADS. They never had the tactical airlifter and the strategic airlift procurement is about to end for the foreseeable future. Boeing may be better off getting out of the defense sector completely and using the resources from that division to bolster the commercial side.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:13 am

Sorry, but this is going to be a rather long response.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68):
"Practically insignificant"????? Hello, the major items of the protest was not the RFI/RFP, it was the selection process the USAF used, and how they conducted it. That is why the DOD took the selection process away from the USAF, the DOD felt the USAF did not fix the process.

They were insignificant, nothing the GAO picked up on was to do with mandatory requirements. John Young in his interview to the WSJ basically said that the whole RFP process is flawed, not just the KC-X RFP. He said, "Frankly, the circumstances and course of events are rewarding bad behavior, which cannot become the norm for defense acquisition."

We know who those remarks are leveled at.

First, Capt. John Young, USN RET., NASA Astronaut, RET., is correct. The entire RFP system is flawed, but it is not either of the OEM fault in the case of the KC-X RFP. His remarks are leveled just where they should be, at the USAF, and the incompetence of the senior "leadership" of the USAF. That pains me to say that as I am retired from the USAF. But, look at the record of almost continous screw-ups they have done since 1991, when McPeak was COSUSAF. 1. Total reorganization of the USAF Combat Commands, eliminating SAC, TAC, and ADC, plus making MAC subordinate to the US Army as part of Transportation Command. 2. The uniform feascal. 3. The YF-22 in development and testing for nearly 20 years. 4. Agreeing to a smaller USAF, and eliminating the EF-111A program. 5. Command and control of nuclear weapons. 6. CSAR-X RFP. 7. The KC-767 lease deal. 8. KC-X RFP. 9. The Thunderbird contract.

As far as the "insignificant GAO report", it was significant, and identified some major problems within the USAF, on the KC-X selection process. Allow me to translate for you (and Keesje and EPA001) all 8 of the GAO sustained points.

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

1. Protest is sustained, where the agency, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements, and where the agency did not take into account the fact that one of the proposals offered to satisfy more “trade space” technical requirements than the other proposal, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical requirements as possible.


In other words, the USAF did not evaluate both airplanes according to how they said they would, in writing, in the RFP.

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


The USAF said, in the RFP, they would not give extra credit for exceeding KPP objectives, when in fact, they did.

3. Protest is sustained, where the record does not demonstrate the reasonableness of the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed‑wing tanker‑compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures

This KPP the USAF chose to ignor when they figuered out the KC-30 could not refuel the CV-22, and possibly other current USAF receiver aircraft.

4. Protest is sustained, where the agency conducted misleading and unequal discussions with the protester, where the agency informed the protester that it had fully satisfied a KPP objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that the protester only partially met this objective, without advising the offeror of this change in its assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with the awardee relating to its satisfaction of the same KPP objective.

This is the meat of the Boeing protest, and prof that the USAF treated Boeing and EADS/NG differently. This is where the USAF shows the KC-X compitition was not impartial, but a foregone conclusion, as once EADS/NG made their formal proposal, of the KC-30, Boeing had no chance, even if they offered the KC-767AT for free. This is also the heart of the current FBI and AFOSI investigation, as well as the DOD-IG, into if bribes were offered and accepted (by USAF officials), or not.

I am not saying there were bribes (job offers after USAF retirement) here, but there is an ongoing investigation.

5. Protest is sustained, where the agency unreasonably determined that the awardee’s refusal to agree to the specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

In other words, "Opps, I forgot", said the USAF.

6. Protest is sustained, where the agency’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals, and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.


In other words, since the USAF didn't like Boeing's estimates of MILCON costs and LCC, the USAF ignored Boeing's numbers and made up their own numbers.

7. Protest is sustained, where the agency improperly added costs to an element of cost (non-recurring engineering costs) in calculating the protester’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with the protester’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency did not determine that the protester’s proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low.

In other words, the USAF told Boeing "we don't understand how you arrived at the LCC (including the non-recurring engineering costs) for the KC-767AT, so we don't believe your numbers". "We (USAF) will therefore make up our own numbers for your KC-X proposal". The funny part of all of this is they never questioned the same non-recurring engineering costs or total LCC from EADS/NG.

8. Protest is sustained, where the agency’s use of a “Monte Carlo” simulation model to determine the protester’s probable cost of non-recurring engineering associated with the system demonstration and development portion of the acquisition was unreasonable, where the model’s inputs concerned total weapons systems at an overall program level and there is no indication that this is a reliable predictor of anticipated growth of the protester’s non‑recurring engineering costs.

In other words, the USAF told Boeing, not only do we not believe your numbers on the KC-767AT today, we won't believe them tomorrow, either. This essentially was a USAF "shot across the bow" of Boeing, because they anticipated a GAO protest, and expected Boeing to lose. But, should Boeing win the GAO protest, they won't believe future growth plans for the KC-X expenses from Boeing.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
Richard Shelby took a big swipe at the behavior of some in the Washington Times

US Senator Richard Shelby is the US Senator from Alabama. What else is a politician going to say? His comments are no less supportive of his voters than those comments from Washington state Congressmen and Senators.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
That the DOD took the process away from the USAF had nothing to do with how the process was conducted. It was a political statement to rebuild the trust in the selection process. This trust was significantly damaged by the Boeing media campaign. That the GAO did find a few relatively minor technicalities (8 out of the more then 100 complaints filed by Boeing) that were easily corrected by the USAF, did not help the public to keep a good feeling about this process.

The DOD took the process away from the USAF because the USAF Leadership is incompetent.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 73):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 72):
I have seen nothing yet from Boeing that would suggest they still could have come to the party with a better frame than the KC-30, but they have spoiled the process, with what in my view is an abuse of process.

Totally correct! After they lost I have not seen anything which looks like constructive behaviour of Boeing in this department. They have tried everything to sabotage this issue, in which they succeeded in the end!

Boeing is defending itself, its products and its shareholders from what it has proven as an unfair process. They have every right to do that. Boeing is not in business to impress either of you, or me, nor do they have anything to prove to us.

Neither Boeing, nor EADS/NG sabotaged anything, the USAF did. As far as the "better frame", the KC-30 or the KC-767, the GAO did site the KC-30 as not being able to do the job outlined by the RFP, refueling all current fix wing tanker compatible receiver aircraft.. So, I guess the better airframe, at least as far as a new USAF tanker goes, is the KC-767AT, since it can refuel all current and near future receiver aircraft.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 75):
Quoting Alien (Reply 23):
I find it far preferable to use my tax dollars to keep fellow Americans building wings than people in Wales.

How many times does it have to be said? I will remind you that Mobile, Alabama and Melbourne, Florida (the two primary centers for the assembly and engineering of the KC-30) are AMERICAN CITIES!

The key word being assembled. None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US. The engines and perhaps the Boom of the KC-30 are built here.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 79):
EADS ensured that PW Canada did not get the engine for the A400

Perhaps that is one reason Canada bought C-17s instead of A-400Ms?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14019
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:40 am

Thnx for explaining KC35

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The key word being assembled. None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US. The engines and perhaps the Boom of the KC-30 are built here.

Can't agree here. Names like Goodrich, Honeywell, Rockwell, Smiths and dozens others are all over the parts list..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
trex8
Posts: 5588
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:27 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
Perhaps that is one reason Canada bought C-17s instead of A-400Ms?

while it may have been a factor the far more important ones were that they needed the capability yesterday and it was a great price
 
trex8
Posts: 5588
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:36 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 86):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The key word being assembled. None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US. The engines and perhaps the Boom of the KC-30 are built here.

Can't agree here. Names like Goodrich, Honeywell, Rockwell, Smiths and dozens others are all over the parts list..

my local congress woman is supporting NG as it will provide actual new jobs in the district (theres a NG facility where they presently build the Litening pod under licence from the Israelis, not sure what tanker work they will get but NG has told Rep. Bean there could be up to two hundred new jobs there if they get the tanker contract. whereas there are probably few if any new jobs to be had at Boeing HQ in the Loop or anywhere in IL if they get the contract).
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 79):
EADS ensured that PW Canada did not get the engine for the A400

No, IIRC it was the French government.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):

Suggest you go further into the GAO decision than the first few pages, the summary at the front reads very different from the detail.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The key word being assembled. None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US. The engines and perhaps the Boom of the KC-30 are built here.

That is absolute rubbish, e.g. Vought make all A330 upper skin panel assemblies, center spar and midrear spar, mid and outboard leading edge assembly, flap, spoiler and flap track fairings. The Marvin Group make the large ribs, and test equipment. Honeywell will make a lot of the avionics, so will NG. GE will make the engines. CC Industries will make the outer rear spar, main landing gear support, ribs. Heath Techna Aerospace makes composite components like the flaps, so does Marion Composites. PPG Industries make the windows, RTI International Metals titanium components.

That does not include the stock material (sheet/ingots/bar) and fasteners made in the US.

EADS is the single biggest export customer of the US aerospace industry, it was that way before the KC-X was even proposed.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:09 pm

Well in the hope that I'm not repeating anyone else's ideas, (not read every post, legalese and bull headed versions of patriotism get tedious), here is an idea from another KC-X tanker thread (what? there's more than one, who'd have thought it?)

Though the KC-10 fleet is of course much newer, they are not getting any younger, some will know better than me on this, but is it not the case they are all over 20 years old?

So compared to the KC-135E fleet, not a replacement priority as such.

But, I still think what helped to sway the USAF for the A330 was the greater lift capability generally, not just for fuel.
The job of the tanker force is now almost entirely in supporting expeditionary warfare, both in deployment and in theatre.

With this is mind, how about an 'honours even' approach which also will provide a great deal more capability for the sort of missions the USAF and the other US and Allied forces they will support?

Buy the A330, KC-45, 150 of them.
They will replace the KC-135E's and some of the other versions too.
Not one for one, anyway the USAF force structure is almost certain to contract somewhat, since the F-15's, F-16's, the F-117's that have already gone, are not being replaced one for one by their successors either.

Then buy 50 KC-777's, (KC-46?), these will replace much of the KC-10 fleet mostly.
They will be considerably cheaper to operate than the KC-10's, with deliveries started from around 2017/18 onwards, several years after KC-45 start delivery.
They will also bring a very good lift capability generally.

The KC-777 fleet would be more optimised for supporting the deployments overseas, the A330 derived tankers the same, but also in theatre too.

These 200 tankers, by around 2020, would still leave quite a few KC-135R's and some KC-10's perhaps too.
But before then, the USAF will have a better idea of how the force structure for the future will look. In an age when technology like larger UCAV's are either on the way or even here.

If it is the case that the force structure still requires more tankers, (taking into account the much greater capability that both these new tankers will give), then options are exercised, for 50 more A330 and 30 more 777 tankers.

The USAF gets a huge injection of additional tanker/transport capability, EADS/NG get to set up their US line, also supplying civil cargo versions well into the future.
Boeing gets a new tanker in USAF service, their B777F programme, though already successful, gets a major shot in the arm too.
The US industrial base gets a new large aircraft line, meaning that along with the 777F it is the provider of essentially all the medium to large civil freight market.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
This is also the heart of the current FBI and AFOSI investigation, as well as the DOD-IG, into if bribes were offered and accepted (by USAF officials), or not.
I assume you got this from reliable sources that the FBI is also involved? I have not found any reference that the FBI is involved but it would be logical since the others investigative organizations are.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am not saying there were bribes (job offers after USAF retirement) here, but there is an ongoing investigation.
This is not just about incompetence with the USAF. Boeing was told by someone in the USAF they wanted the KC-767 and I believe the investigators will get to the bottom of this. If Boeing is found to have participated in receiving ill-gotten information and not reporting it, that will certainly complicate things for the Government and Boeing's supporters.

Maybe this investigation is the real reason the Pentagon dropped the competition for now and explains why Rep. Murtha now wants to study a split-buy with NG getting the first shot. Boeing's role is under investigation and no one knows where and when it will end. If Boeing is found at fault, they could be disqualified or worse, face debarment (which is unlikely for reasons of national security)

Here is an excerpt (of the full article linked below) where Rep. Murtha talks about this.

"Murtha said his staff has examined the added cost of having two sets of tankers, and are still working on the numbers.

He said he is "going to work with the Defense Department trying to convince them that, look, we're not going to have tankers now." He predicted under a dual-competition setup "Northrop would get the plane first, because they have one that's ready to go," and then "Boeing would come in later."



http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=28529

[Edited 2008-09-27 10:36:15]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:52 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 90):
Suggest you go further into the GAO decision than the first few pages, the summary at the front reads very different from the detail.

I did. I read nothing that is different from the summery of the first page. I also read all the referenced material quoted in my reply # 85 from the expanded GAO report.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 90):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The key word being assembled. None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US. The engines and perhaps the Boom of the KC-30 are built here.

That is absolute rubbish, e.g. Vought make all A330 upper skin panel assemblies, center spar and midrear spar, mid and outboard leading edge assembly, flap, spoiler and flap track fairings. The Marvin Group make the large ribs, and test equipment. Honeywell will make a lot of the avionics, so will NG. GE will make the engines. CC Industries will make the outer rear spar, main landing gear support, ribs. Heath Techna Aerospace makes composite components like the flaps, so does Marion Composites. PPG Industries make the windows, RTI International Metals titanium components.

That does not include the stock material (sheet/ingots/bar) and fasteners made in the US.

EADS is the single biggest export customer of the US aerospace industry, it was that way before the KC-X was even proposed.

All the airframe parts from Vought, Marvin, CC, Heath Techna, Marion, PPG, and RTI are shipped over to different European countries to be assembled into sub assemblies (fuselage, wings, etc.) and those sub assemblies will then be shipped back to the US for final assembly. I had excluded the engines and Boom in my post, the avionics are not airframe parts.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 92):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
This is also the heart of the current FBI and AFOSI investigation, as well as the DOD-IG, into if bribes were offered and accepted (by USAF officials), or not.
I assume you got this from reliable sources that the FBI is also involved? I have not found any reference that the FBI is involved but it would be logical since the others investigative organizations are.

Yes, my source is reliable. I have no idea how the investigation is progressing, nor would I try to guess. There may be criminal activity here, or there may be nothing here.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 92):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am not saying there were bribes (job offers after USAF retirement) here, but there is an ongoing investigation.
This is not just about incompetence with the USAF. Boeing was told by someone in the USAF they wanted the KC-767 and I believe the investigators will get to the bottom of this. If Boeing is found to have participated in receiving ill-gotten information and not reporting it, that will certainly complicate things for the Government and Boeing's supporters.

Maybe this investigation is the real reason the Pentagon dropped the competition for now and explains why Rep. Murtha now wants to study a split-buy with NG getting the first shot. Boeing's role is under investigation and no one knows where and when it will end. If Boeing is found at fault, they could be disqualified or worse, face debarment (which is unlikely for reasons of national security)

I believe Boeing did report, during the KC-X compitition, that they were told by someone the USAF wanted the KC-767AT. They reported this to the USAF, and after the contract was awarded to EADS/NG, to the GAO. I doubt Boeing, NG, or any other major defence contractor wants to get into the trouble Boeing got into in 2002/2003 with the KC-767 lease deal.

Your guess as to why DOD cancelled the KC-X compitition until the next administration could be right, or way out in left feild, too. We just don't know.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 92):
"Murtha said his staff has examined the added cost of having two sets of tankers, and are still working on the numbers.

He said he is "going to work with the Defense Department trying to convince them that, look, we're not going to have tankers now." He predicted under a dual-competition setup "Northrop would get the plane first, because they have one that's ready to go," and then "Boeing would come in later."

Congressman Murtha, even though he is a retired USMC Col., is an idiot. He is doing nothing more than trying to sit in the middle of the fence, giving something to both EADS and Boeing. Like a real politician, he won't take a stand and support one or the other. He wants to support both.

What he is proposing is the USAF will be flying four different types of tankers at the same time (sometime within the next 10 years, or so), the KC-135R/T, KC-10A, KC-30A, and KC-777F. Flying four types of airplanes that do essentially the same mission is not done in the USAF today, and only will happen with fighters in the near future (F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35). The USAF only flies three types of major cargo planes (C-130, C-5, and C-17), and three bomber types (B-52H, B-1B, and B-2A).

There is a good reason for this. The cost of parts and maintenance, crew training and crew proficency increases with each type of airplane added.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:34 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I did. I read nothing that is different from the summery of the first page. I also read all the referenced material quoted in my reply # 85 from the expanded GAO report.

It is very different, the details actually says in a lot of instances comments like "we could not find records" or to the effect to support the USAF position, it is not making an assessment at all about the actual feature.

Also you do not seem to understand the difference between mandatory and non mandatory requirements, please list a mandatory requirement that the GAO found the KC-30 did not meet.

Not having a record is not the same as not meeting the requirement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
All the airframe parts from Vought, Marvin, CC, Heath Techna, Marion, PPG, and RTI are shipped over to different European countries to be assembled into sub assemblies (fuselage, wings, etc.) and those sub assemblies will then be shipped back to the US for final assembly. I had excluded the engines and Boom in my post, the avionics are not airframe parts.

Again absolute rubbish, this is what YOU claimed,

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
None of the original A-330 airframe parts are built in the US.

Obviously, a lot of ORIGINAL airframes parts are made in the US, and from what I understand at component level, the MAJORITY of the A330 airframe parts are made in the US, as the MAJORITY of airframe parts are the fasteners, not to mention the stock material which is sourced from the US to make other parts..

You just choose to have an arbitrary line in the sand, becuase the wing is assembled in the UK, you ignore all the US content that it is made from. If you go back far enough in the supply chain, you will be surprised as to how much is actually made in the US.

If people were to use your logic, the KC-30A would be 100% US made, as that is where the final assembly is done (I am not suggesting this at all).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:53 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
It is very different, the details actually says in a lot of instances comments like "we could not find records" or to the effect to support the USAF position, it is not making an assessment at all about the actual feature.

Zeke, I could not find any records to show that you have 3 heads, therefore you must have 3 heads? What kind of argument are you dragging in? In the "real world" as some people with reality based reality call it you have to PROVE that you can do something not the reverse.

Oh hey NG you forgot to prove that "your" tanker can refuel anything, but thats fine we will assume it can refuel anything anyway. Can you SEE whats wrong with that position?

Its simple, in these situations the burdon of proof lies on the person making the claims, not with the person conducting the RFP, or anyone else at all. NG FAILED to prove it could refuel not just one but multiple types of recievers. More troubling is it FAILED to do so when directly asked by the GAO to provide this evidence to rebut Boeing's claim they didn't meet the minimum requirement in the RFP.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:30 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
I did. I read nothing that is different from the summery of the first page. I also read all the referenced material quoted in my reply # 85 from the expanded GAO report.

It is very different, the details actually says in a lot of instances comments like "we could not find records" or to the effect to support the USAF position, it is not making an assessment at all about the actual feature.

How can you understand the GAO report, when you don't understand what you wrote? The position the USAF took with "we could not find the records" is no legal position at all. In Texas, auto insurance is required, and if you get pulled over by the police, you must show proof of insurance. What do you think will happen if someone tells the Trooper "Officer, I do have auto insurance, but I just don't have the insurance card proving it"? The answer is in most counties in Texas, you get a $500 no insurance ticket, in some counties, your car is also impounded.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
Also you do not seem to understand the difference between mandatory and non mandatory requirements, please list a mandatory requirement that the GAO found the KC-30 did not meet.

Not having a record is not the same as not meeting the requirement.

I did, but here read it again. The KC-30 cannot refuel all USAF fixed wing receiver aircraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
3. Protest is sustained, where the record does not demonstrate the reasonableness of the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed‑wing tanker‑compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures

This KPP the USAF chose to ignor when they figuered out the KC-30 could not refuel the CV-22, and possibly other current USAF receiver aircraft.

I might add, the KC-30 has not refuel any aircraft with its Boom. I know it is down right now, between test phases, but the KC-30 did not refuel any Boom/Receptical receiver aircraft in phase 1. Don't give me the KC-310 test bed tanker has refueled with the Boom. Yes, it has, once. since that one flight, the KC-310 has not flown due to problems with the Air Refueling Boom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15167
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:36 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 95):
In the "real world" as some people with reality based reality call it you have to PROVE that you can do something not the reverse.

Lots of real world decision are based up engineering judgments by people who are familiar with the area. The USAF has its own experts, and it up to the vendors to submit information to make those experts satisfied or otherwise, black and white proof is not required.

Neither Boeing or NG could supply black and white proof about their products capabilities, they both need development to come to the KC-X standard. That is why the USAF does the risk assessment.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 95):
Oh hey NG you forgot to prove that "your" tanker can refuel anything, but thats fine we will assume it can refuel anything anyway. Can you SEE whats wrong with that position?

Yes, and I forget that 5 other countries have no trouble with the KC-30 refueling aircraft of the same speed categories, many of US origin, and many with the same aircraft as the USAF. The RAAF for example will have everything from the fastest (F-111) to the slowest (C-130).

The KC-X asked for the aircraft to refuel all current fixed wing tanker capable aircraft using USAF procedures, the KC-30 has already satisfied this requirement with other air forces using the NATO AAR procedures. The NATO AAR procedures are broader and cover more aircraft than the USAF procedures, and the USAF uses NATO procedures.

We know the A330 is capable of 360KIAS, the FAA has already certified it before for that speed. Boeing put forward the current TCDS that says 330KIAS, and used that to say it could not refuel the fast jets, as it could not reach 350KIAS. The RFP did not ask the vendors to specify the maximum overrun speed, or require a minimum overrun speed, so by what reasoning do you expect NG should have provided that information ?

If the RFP had a KPP threshold that said the KC-X should be capable of 355KIAS, then I agree they should provide records to satisfy that, but the RFP did not make such a specification. You are making up requirements to suit your position.

If given the chance, I am sure NG could have provided the GAO with the flight test data where the KC-30 already flew at those speeds earlier in the year. But the GAO is not allowed to reopen discussions with NG, or collect new evidence directly from the vendors, you have to use what you submitted to the USAF during the process.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 95):
More troubling is it FAILED to do so when directly asked by the GAO to provide this evidence to rebut Boeing's claim they didn't meet the minimum requirement in the RFP.

NG never failed to anything of the kind. The GAO is not allowed to collect new evidence or reopen discussion with the vendors, that is a fundamental problem I see with the GAO process. It has to refer it back to the agency to reopen discussions, and make new decisions. The GAO is not allowed to do that, nor is it capable of doing so. It is a legal organization, not a defense procurement agency.

It seems you have not grasped this fundamental difference, the GAO looks at the paperwork and procedures, it may not have a clue what it all means from a technical standpoint, nor is it required to.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:48 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 95):
Oh hey NG you forgot to prove that "your" tanker can refuel anything, but thats fine we will assume it can refuel anything anyway. Can you SEE whats wrong with that position?

Yes, and I forget that 5 other countries have no trouble with the KC-30 refueling aircraft of the same speed categories, many of US origin, and many with the same aircraft as the USAF. The RAAF for example will have everything from the fastest (F-111) to the slowest (C-130).

The KC-X asked for the aircraft to refuel all current fixed wing tanker capable aircraft using USAF procedures, the KC-30 has already satisfied this requirement with other air forces using the NATO AAR procedures. The NATO AAR procedures are broader and cover more aircraft than the USAF procedures, and the USAF uses NATO procedures.

Zeke, that is weak. None of those other countries KC-30s have been built or are flying, except for those for the RAAF. I believe two of those KC-30s have flown to date, but it may be three. OTOH, 7 of the 8 ordered KC-767s, in two different configuerations are flying, or have flown, as tankers. Two KC-767Js are operational.

NATO AAR procedures are narrower than those of the USAF, not broader. Fewer NATO airplane types are capable of AAR than the number of types within the USAF/USN/USMC. NATO only has a hand full of fighter types, AWACS, and C-17s that can refuel, and most of them are probe and drogue refueling, not Boom refueling. The US has all fighter types, attack types, command and control, recce (except the U-2 and EP-3), AWACS, bomber, cargo, some tankers, and the VC-25A that are capable of air refueling.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:44 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 89):
No, IIRC it was the French government.

Are we now saying that EADS is French or French controlled?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 97):
Yes, and I forget that 5 other countries have no trouble with the KC-30 refueling aircraft of the same speed categories, many of US origin, and many with the same aircraft as the USAF. The RAAF for example will have everything from the fastest (F-111) to the slowest (C-130).

KC135TopBoom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the US Air Force is the only one using the BOOM method, if so, claiming that the KC-30 can refuel and use it firgures to justify requirements for the US Air Force makes ones job difficult, unless of course, the US Airforce intends to go all hose and drogue.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buckeyetech, Revelation and 13 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