Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:08 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 50):
Do remind us of the flawless and timely development and introduction history of the C-130Js.

They do have the distinct advantage of being available....
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:11 pm

Personally I don´t think US can afford any KC767 nor KC330.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:42 pm

Thoughts about a retreat to protection should raise memories of some of the effects of the 1930 tarrif act, otherwise known as Smoot Hawley.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...esult&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA150,M1

P153.
Or for a more racy account of little intended consequences try:
http://rcocean.blogspot.com/2008/10/...-about-smoot-hawley-mr-mccain.html

Or
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...D.PL?d=ww2010.book.americanhistory
The Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Great Depression and World War II go together -- it's impossible to understand one without the other. We're going to be studying the Great Depression in detail in chapter 6, but for now let's look at its part in leading to World War II.


Funny thing is that this time around, if there is a pull back in world trade it might well be the US desperately trying to repay its new century version of reparations, but again to countries to the west. Must be a version of what goes around comes around I suppose.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:27 am

This is the one and only warning that will be issued in regards to this thread.

Keep it on topic or it will be locked, This thread is about the new USAF tanker competition, not WWII. If you want to discuss WWII, do it in a thread in Non-Av (unless it is related to WWII aviation).
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:05 am



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 51):
Personally I don´t think US can afford any KC767 nor KC330.

I agree. The US Government has no money since we bailed everyone, except me, out. Perhaps LM will bid a re-engine program for the KC-135Es?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10183
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:55 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 54):
The US Government has no money since we bailed everyone, except me, out.

We'll just go deeper into debt. Looking at where we stand now, Obama can spend a trillion dollars and only increase the debt by 10%. Now that's scary.

Ini terms of military spending, though, I believe that the focus will be on rebuilding after Iraq as well as increasing the size of the "boots on the ground" part of the military. The increase is based on the history of our deployments to Iraq where we sent troops there for too long a period and let them stay home for too short a time. There simply wasn't enough troops to have reasonable rotations.

Now add in the economic problems we're having and you see a lot of young people who can't find a job joining the military. That's one job program that I don't see Obama cutting - especially with the needs for more troops.

With the need for rebuilding after Iraq, the need to increase troop levels and the current economy the AF will be lucky to get funds for a re-engine program - just like the Navy will be lucky to get all of the funds needed for upgrading some of their ships.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:27 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 55):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 54):
The US Government has no money since we bailed everyone, except me, out.

We'll just go deeper into debt. Looking at where we stand now, Obama can spend a trillion dollars and only increase the debt by 10%. Now that's scary.

Ini terms of military spending, though, I believe that the focus will be on rebuilding after Iraq as well as increasing the size of the "boots on the ground" part of the military. The increase is based on the history of our deployments to Iraq where we sent troops there for too long a period and let them stay home for too short a time. There simply wasn't enough troops to have reasonable rotations.

Now add in the economic problems we're having and you see a lot of young people who can't find a job joining the military. That's one job program that I don't see Obama cutting - especially with the needs for more troops.

With the need for rebuilding after Iraq, the need to increase troop levels and the current economy the AF will be lucky to get funds for a re-engine program - just like the Navy will be lucky to get all of the funds needed for upgrading some of their ships.

That is all true, or at least I hope that will all happen. But, the USAF does have a fall back position that no one, I know has looked at. Currently, the E-8C J-STARS are beginning a re-engine program to replace the original TF-33-P100/P102s (JT-3D-17/18A) with newly built JT-8D-219 engines (same engines as on the MD-88), increasing thrust from about 18,000 lbs per engine to about 21,000 lbs per engine (the new designation will be the E-8D/E). Since the KC-135E already has the same B-707 engine struts and TF-33-P100/P102 engines, and sub-systems, it will not take much engineering, or costs to add these airplanes into the J-STARS re-engineing program, and could reduce the cost per airplane. The KC-135E would need a new MDS designation. KC-135J, KC-135K, KC-135S, KC-135W, KC-135X, KC-135Y, and KC-135Z are all available as new designations.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:21 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):

All true, but as I indicated on the E-8 thread, the preference will be to keep the -135's on the CFM's for crew and mx issues alone. The marginal cost isn't enough to do a sub-fleet.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:43 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 57):
All true, but as I indicated on the E-8 thread, the preference will be to keep the -135's on the CFM's for crew and mx issues alone. The marginal cost isn't enough to do a sub-fleet.

The KC-135E is primarily for ANG units, active duty units never flew the KC-135E in Wing organized units. Some active duty did fly E models but they were in special test units or at Offutt used for crew training and transport or VIP travel CASEY 01. The cost of going to the JT8d will be much lower than going to the CFM56 which requires alot more fabrication work done to the wing. Plus it gives us more booms in the air quickly than waiting for the possible 330/767 buy.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:09 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 58):
The KC-135E is primarily for ANG units, active duty units never flew the KC-135E in Wing organized units. Some active duty did fly E models but they were in special test units or at Offutt used for crew training and transport or VIP travel CASEY 01.

But, in the mid 1980s there was a proposal by SAC to re-engine KC-135A units that were co-located with USAFR or ANG KC-135E units with the TF-33-P102 engines. Those units included the 509 AREFS at Pease AFB, NH, co-located with the NHANG, and the 305 AREFW at Grissom AFB, IN co-located with a USAFR unit. The 42 AREFS at Loring AFB, ME would have been re-engined to the KC-135E, even though the MEANG KC-135E unit was at BGR (former Dow AFB, ME).

I might add that in addition to CINCSAC's KC-01, all the other CSA (Command Support Aircraft, or as we on the real SAC bases called them Chicken Sh-- Airlines) had their C/VC-135As re-engined to C/VC-135Es, the VC-135Cs were not re-engined.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:53 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 55):
We'll just go deeper into debt. Looking at where we stand now, Obama can spend a trillion dollars and only increase the debt by 10%. Now that's scary.

3,5 Billion US$ a day, which means US is lending the estimated total cost of the Spaceshuttle programme in 50 days. 1 trillion equals 8.7% of the total debt 10,6/11,6
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:23 pm

Whatever the process it is begining to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50Q5HN20090127

Sec. Gates says he wants competition, but leaves an out - the "the best deal for the taxpayer" part of the evaluation. This is political speak for "we reserve the right to award the contract to anyone we wish". Not the transparency we have been promised, but then very few things over the past week has been transparent.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:50 pm

Military contracts are rarely only about the best equipment. Since it is always a federal government procurement, any purchase is seen as a country buying goods, not just an arm of the military.

As such, the decision will always be about politics at least as much as it is about buying equipment most suitable to the troops.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14522
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:13 am

I think every one knows the merits of both offerings. So it is important to tweak the requirements and proces in order to stear to te preferred supplier.

Complications arise if the other supplier offers a clearly better product, changes his offering late in the process and makes sure everyone knows.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:19 am

The KC-X contrversey will never go away now, no matter who might win the contract. It may be time now to simply cancel the KC-X program altogether, and re-engine the KC-135Es to either become updated KC-135Rs, with the F-108 engines, or tag onto the E-8C re-engine program and the JT-8D-219 engines.

Then we can punt kick the decision on new build tankers 20 years down the road to the KC-10A replacement in the KC-Y program.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:28 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64):
The KC-X contrversey will never go away

 checkmark  We brought it on ourselves.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64):
It may be time now to simply cancel the KC-X program altogether,

Congress can direct a sole source it to Boeing, consistent with the provision of the law that requires the SECDEF to consider the defense infrastructure. There will be a lot of hurt feelings and howls, but this is the only realistic way I can see out of the political jungle.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26562
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:49 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64):
The KC-X controversy will never go away now, no matter who might win the contract. It may be time now to simply cancel the KC-X program altogether, and re-engine the KC-135Es to either become updated KC-135Rs, with the F-108 engines, or tag onto the E-8C re-engine program and the JT-8D-219 engines.

Then we can punt kick the decision on new build tankers 20 years down the road to the KC-10A replacement in the KC-Y program.

 checkmark 

We really should be looking at buying the next gen aircraft beyond the A330/767.

Till then, let's use up the rest of the airframe life on the KC-135s!

When the KC-135 was purchased, it was the most advanced airframe available.

It was a good decision then, and it's still paying dividends.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 65):
Congress can direct a sole source it to Boeing, consistent with the provision of the law that requires the SECDEF to consider the defense infrastructure. There will be a lot of hurt feelings and howls, but this is the only realistic way I can see out of the political jungle.

I'm kind of surprised the USAF is still beating the drum for new tankers. You would have thought last year's slap in the face would have humbled them some.

I think the only way things would go forward for KC-767 is some sort of "grand comprimise" where EU gets tossed a bone of some sort.

I have a very hard time seeing how KC-330 will go forward on its own, but then again, I've been 100% wrong about this in the past.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10183
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:01 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 62):
As such, the decision will always be about politics at least as much as it is about buying equipment most suitable to the troops.

I agree, so the first job for the AF is finding a sufficient number of politicians willing to spend money for tankers under the current economic conditions. Any free money available and they'll want it for projects in their districts or states.

Personally I believe that KC-X is dead in the water. Just too many other priorities for military and non-military spending for it to have a hope. The AF will be lucky to get the funding for anything but upgrading the existing KC-135s.
 
User avatar
UltimateDelta
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:56 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:14 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
A-319LR/A-320E

And what good would that do? Both companies are promoting the capacity and all that stuf about their much larger planes. (Or at least they were)
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:39 pm

Sounds like the Robert Gates and the Air Force are about to be told "dual buy" or nothing:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nnel=defense&id=news/KCX012909.xml

General Loh's observation is dead on. Also, putting two separate groups to work in this economy will only strengthen Congress' hand.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26562
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:52 pm



Quote:
“There’s no way that the Air Force or anyone else can write a operational requirement for existing aircraft with known capabilities that results in a level playing field,” says retired USAF Gen. Mike Loh, once head of Air Combat Command. “Whatever you write will tilt the decision and end up in another protest.”

I don't think the goal is a level playing field, the goal is to get the USAF what it thinks it needs. I think one can write such a RFP, and I think such an RFP will get protested, but I think it could survive a protest. USAF came pretty close last time.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:04 pm

I think that the General is missing the point.

As you say, the objective is to obtain the best Tanker to meet the USAF's needs.

The real problem is to predict what the USAF will need.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26562
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:14 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 71):
As you say, the objective is to obtain the best Tanker to meet the USAF's needs.

The real problem is to predict what the USAF will need.

A corollary to what I wrote is I feel the USAF could write an RFP that would guarantee the selection of KC767 or KC330, and still survive a protest.

If they really want a KC330, just write the RFP so that only KC330 can meet the criteria.

At this point, USAF has more than enough data to guarantee such an outcome, should they desire it.

The next question is will Congress fund such a program.

The answer is probably not, thus the talk of the split buy.

I'm quite surprised Congress thinks they have the funds for such a program.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:17 am

Surely the point of a RFP is to say what you objectives are, they should not be written to guarantee a KC767 buy or a KC330 buy.

At the end of the day you should write your RFP and buy the type that best meets it.
Not decide which type you want and write the RFP arround it.

If that means that the USAF buys the KC767 then so be it. If the KC330 is the best plane, then Boeing needs to move onto the B787/B747-8 and their next new project.

At the end of the day, a bit of honesty and integrity is better than constant smoke and mirrors.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:48 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 73):
At the end of the day, a bit of honesty and integrity is better than constant smoke and mirrors.

That is the issue. The Air Force (or any service) (the user) has an agenda, but the Congress (the funder) has a completely different agenda. Thus the issues. The current party in control of the Congress believes military equipment purchases are "make jobs" versus "war fighting" needs.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:53 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 74):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 73):
The current party in control of the Congress believes military equipment purchases are "make jobs" versus "war fighting" needs.

To be fair, the Republicans from the south, particularly Alabama & Florida, are fighting mightily for those jobs. Besides, its public (i.e., taxpayer) money. There is a reasonable expectation that the country will derive maximum benefit from its expenditure. There is the example of the A400 & TP400 as well.

As for "war fighting needs", the USAF admitted that both candidates could do the job. These are logistic aircraft after all and not the pointy end of the spear.

My personal opinion is that the USAF got screwed by McCain's insistence on "compeition", whatever his motives. However, now that this thing has gone through selection-protest-cancellation, there seems to be sentiment here that the United States is "locked into" selecting one of the other. We must do what is in our best interest and it it requries a sole source to achieve this then so be it. We are under NO, i.e., as in zero, zip, nada, obligation to compete this.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10931
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:40 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 75):
To be fair, the Republicans from the south, particularly Alabama & Florida, are fighting mightily for those jobs. Besides, its public (i.e., taxpayer) money.

How many of the first frames of the EADS offering will be assembled in the US versus the Boing product, if built in France and flown to the US for modification, what quality of jobs are we talking about? As I wrote this I thought about this one, how much modification is being done, could it be done on normal production a/c? Would be interesting to see what the final cost of each frame is and compare it to buying a civ bird and modifying it, interesting.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 73):
At the end of the day you should write your RFP and buy the type that best meets it.

I do not think it is possible to write a RFP to be met by an a/c already in production, if you ignore the realities that already exits how fool proof will the proces be? If the RFP states a new design and build a/c there are no sides, each OEM goes away and comes back with a proposal.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:53 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 75):
My personal opinion is that the USAF got screwed by McCain's insistence on "compeition", whatever his motives.

So he should have let the American taxpayer get fleeced on the lease deal? The US would have received a better finance deal from Joe's Used Cars (where they tote the note) than what Boeing was offering on the lease deal.

The only way to write a fair RFP is by starting from a clean sheet (new build) with minimums. Taking existing airplanes (or trucks, etc) each manufacturer is going to have its own product and the probability of one of those products exactly matching the RFP is low. (You cannot take one product and say that is the minimum because if you do that, you have just named the winner.)
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:21 am

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 77):
The only way to write a fair RFP is by starting from a clean sheet (new build) with minimums.

There is no requirement to have an RFP if there is a sole source.

BTW, I would feel a lot better about McCain's purity of heart if several of his aides had not gone to work for Northrop Grumman as lobbyists.

[Edited 2009-01-31 16:23:20]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:49 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
I'm quite surprised Congress thinks they have the funds for such a program.

I am too, since Obama is talking about a 10% cut in defense funding beginning in FY-2010.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 75):
We are under NO, i.e., as in zero, zip, nada, obligation to compete this.

Correct.

If there are any new tankers, the unions will have the biggest voice in Congress as to who builds it. If we reengine the KC-135Es, look for that work to go to a union shop, too.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14522
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:13 am

Well if "may the best win" is no longer important we can expect many international deals to stall / switch. Devestating for US Union workers, because the US is still the largets weapon / military aircraft exporter. That's why Lockheed was so nervous during the tanker circus.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008.../lockheed-praises-tanker-decision/

This might leave a big "Unreliable" stickers on places you don't want them.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:11 am

Keesje, do you ever have recent relivent news to share? That link was from last June, well before the GAO report came out. I don't know what LM thinks of the tanker deal now, but, it has not seemed to hurt the F-35 program.

That was already posted here, on 4 June 2008;

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/90541/

You already said that this is a new round in this thread started by you on 13 September 2008:

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/96497/

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
Well if "may the best win" is no longer important

There in lies the problem. You and I do not agree on which tanker would have been "the best choice".
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:09 pm

Read on wiki that the maintenance cost for the KC-135 raise by 6% annually, so they´re more and more expensive to maintain.
Personally I think the best option today for USAF would be to convert DC-10s to tankers and later MD-11s.
My other suggestion would be UAV KC-10, basically using Globalhawk technology, guess it would save lot of money in the long run, salaries (4 member aircrew and no replacement needed ), no necessity to pressurize the cockpit, no bathroom, less weight. My guess is that you also could fly higher and longer?
Problems is that Globalhawks producers are involved in the KC-330 project, secondly finding
a place to test the UAV system, perhaps Ascension island would be good?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:35 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
Well if "may the best win" is no longer important we can expect many international deals to stall / switch.

You keep bringing this up. What "deals" are you talking about? AFAIK, only the F-35 seems to be in play for European countries. They have their own shipbuilding industries and AFV manufacture; all armored vehicles are "home grown". Virtually all their aviation programs are home grown, or have significant offsets attached. Then there's Galileo. Then there's Ariane. Then there's the A400. Then there's the TP400. Every European country that selects the F-35 will obtain significant offsets for their own industry and economy.

On the other hand, BAE produces armored vehicles in the U.S. for the U.S. Armed forces, RR produces engines, we have purchased helicopters from Eurocopter, transports from Italy, and the presidential helicopter is a European design.

Tell us what items you are going to stick those "unreliable" stickers on? Tell us why we are obligated, which you seem to think we are, to allow Airbus to bid on the tanker.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26562
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:33 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 83):
BAE produces armored vehicles in the U.S. for the U.S. Armed forces

BAe plc has a whole North American subsidiary that operates semi-autonomously as BAe Inc.

The North American operations take in more money than do the UK ones.

I drive past one of their facilities every day.

The vehicles come via their acquisition of United Defense Industries and Armor Holdings.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Inc
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
BAe plc has a whole North American subsidiary that operates semi-autonomously as BAe Inc.

The parent company is based in the UK and it has a BOD dominated by citizens of the UK. Not at all a problem but to infer that just because BAE has substantial operations in the states somehow makes it not foreign is false. The big decisions are made in the UK and the profits go offshore.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26562
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:41 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 85):
The parent company is based in the UK and it has a BOD dominated by citizens of the UK. Not at all a problem but to infer that just because BAE has substantial operations in the states somehow makes it not foreign is false. The big decisions are made in the UK and the profits go offshore.

Yes, it's a foreign entity.

To me, the big thing is the jobs and the technology stay here.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:00 am



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 82):
Read on wiki that the maintenance cost for the KC-135 raise by 6% annually, so they´re more and more expensive to maintain.

Wikipedia?  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:24 pm

Gsosbee

Clearly it is not simply a case of exactly hitting X benchmarks.

Each product will exceed the benchmark by different amounts in different areas.

You need to award extra marks for exceeding target, and this needs to be specified up front.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:47 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 88):

You may have slightly missed the point. The point was taking OTS aircraft in service immediately causes a problem for US government RFP's as if you pick one as the base for the RFP, all others will protest and point out why theirs is better overall.

Any US government related big price tag purchase program that requires any type of thinking/contrasting advantages is an open invitation for chaos. Programs like these work best when prototypes can be built and evaluated.
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:01 pm

With the current uproar over the buy American wording in the stimulus package (only US steel allowed to get funding), protectionist forces are very strong at the moment. Obama has spoken out against it but it shows the strong sentiment that is present in the Capital building. There will be intense pressure to buy whatever is deemed to be the most beneficial to US companies and the appearance of the purchase will be as important as the actual purchase.

This will be very interesting to see how it pans out with regards to the tanker bid. I would also not be surprized to see the decision shelved for a while longer as well.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:18 pm

Remember two important things here.
1. Its a military procurement and, AFAIK, not subject to the WTO rules that govern most commercial dealings.
2. There doesn't have to be a "competition". It can be sole sourced. Just like the A400.

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 90):
There will be intense pressure to buy whatever is deemed to be the most beneficial to US companies and the appearance of the purchase will be as important as the actual purchase.

Yes, and even more "intense" than the last time when the USAF selected a European airframe.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27643
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:09 am

If Airbus agrees to not only build the KC-30B here, but also any future KC-30A for the RAAF and future A330MRTTs as well as the A330-200F (and an A330-300F if it ever comes to pass), then I would support a dual-buy of the following:

  • 60 KC-30As to replace the KC-10 Extender Fleet
  • 150 KC-767s to replace the KC-135Es (I believe there are around 150 of this model)

That gets the 150 oldest tankers out of the USAF and ANG fleets, leaving us with the KC-135Rs which can then trickle down to replace the KC-135Es as the KC-767 come in. It also gets us a plane more efficient then the KC-10 fleet.

Future buys can then be determined based on the USAF's need not just for tankers, but for other planes like replacements for the E-3, E-6, E-8, EC-135, RC-135 and OC-135 frames. The 767 platform would be perfect to replace those other 707-based models and additional KC-30As could be purchased to replace the KC-135R fleet as the oldest models come up for replacement.

[Edited 2009-02-05 17:10:04]
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:04 am

That might be a deal worth doing.

I assume that passenger A330's are excluded.

What is the deal on Cargo conversions, I assume that they are also excluded.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27643
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:27 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 93):
I assume that passenger A330's are excluded.

Well Airbus probably could send a commercial A330 down the line if they needed to, but I would expect they would be built at TLS until the line is formally closed. However, TLS will have the A350X program to replace it, so employment may not rise much, but it should not fall.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 93):
What is the deal on Cargo conversions, I assume that they are also excluded.

Those are usually handled by independent agencies. I expect Airbus will develop a formal process to convert a plane (as Boeing has done with their "Boeing Converted Freighter" programs for the 747 and 767), but like the BCFs, the actual conversion work will likely be handled in Asia. And I expect IAI will develop their own conversion plan and do that work in Israel as they have done with Boeing planes.

Then again, Alabama (or any state) could offer tax credits and such to try and land that business, but I expect labor costs in Asia will win out...
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:39 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
If Airbus agrees to not only build the KC-30B here, but also any future KC-30A for the RAAF and future A330MRTTs as well as the A330-200F (and an A330-300F if it ever comes to pass), then I would support a dual-buy of the following:

There is still the issue of using taxpayer money to fund the competitor to one of America's largest exporters, i.e., Boeing. This may play well here, but I suspect that it would never pass in the Congress.

IMO, it would take serious concessions from both sides to work out something that would get the airbus into the USAF inventory. How about the Airbus countries canceling the A400M and ordering a (large) mix of C-17s and C-130Js? In return, the USAF gets the KC-30. Make it "dollar for dollar" or "euro for euro" in value both ways. Of course, the KC-30 would continue to be built in Europe.

KC-Y could then proceed as planned....
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27643
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:21 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 95):
There is still the issue of using taxpayer money to fund the competitor to one of America's largest exporters, i.e., Boeing. This may play well here, but I suspect that it would never pass in the Congress.

It was widely assumed that the KC-767 would win the initial RFP. When it didn't, the WA and KS delegations raised cane, but the rest of Congress didn't immediately swing into line behind them. The Democrats comfortably controlled both houses and while they could not stop a Republican filibuster in the Senate, in an election year would the Republicans want to be known as the party that was denying "American" workers jobs in favor of "French" workers?

Congress could have passed legislation giving it to Boeing at any time after the RFP was kicked back to the OEMs, yet they did not. Why? Because they think if they drop enough hints the USAF will get the message and award it to Boeing? That didn't work the first time, remember.

Congress has no spine, but they have an out now on charges of "jingoism" - the A400M program. The KC-767 may not be the best KC-X entrant, but it at least meets the conditions of the RFP. The A400M does not (at least for the German Luftwaffe), and yet the German Bundestag is widely expected to provide additional funding and force the Luftwaffe to wait for the A400M that does meet the RFP to keep those jobs in Germany. Same with the French Congress (who also are underwriting up to €5 billion in Airbus commercial sales) and the Spanish Cortes Generales.

And if EADS does agree to build all military and freighter A330 models in the United States, that not only benefits American workers, it benefits European ones, as well. And it brings the US and Europe closer together. And the USAF gets a great plane out of the deal, as well.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10865
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:24 pm

I do not think that the Unions would buy moving passenger A330 production to the US.

I also suspect that when A300F work ends at Dresden that they will start on A330's.

I have little doubt that the 400M will eventually be scrapped.

A Euro for Euro deal might work.

However this will all be viewed with as much suspician in Europe as in the US.

Let's not forget that we are only talking about 60 KC330's.

The KC-Y will not be contested this decade.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:20 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
While a KC-777 (if the B-777 is still in production when the KC-Y programs begins) could be a KC-10 replacement, there is no way any current model of the A-340, in a KC-340 version can do that. A KC-340 would simply be a slightly heavier and four engine version of any KC-30 offer.

How could Airbus offer an A340 based tanker anyway? The A330 based tankers use A340 wings modified to put refueling pods where the #1 and #4 engines would go on an A340. If an A340 based tanker had 4 engines, then a new hard point would have to be designed further out on the wing. If you wanted a larger tanker, it would be better to take an A340-500 and put GE-90's in the #2 and #3 positions and put hard points on the #1 and #4 positions.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A Or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010

Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:54 am

This may be nothing, but the FBI has raided a lobbying firm with close ties to John Murtha. It doesn't mention the tanker, but many people, including myself, were a bit leery when he came out in favor of a split purchase over the strident objections of DOD. First it was McCain's former aides lobbying for N.G.; now this. Who knows where this one will go? These guys are the first to preach "acquisition reform", but apparently that's all for public show.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6840438&page=1

Quote:
Good government groups have long criticized Murtha's cozy relationship with a handful of lobbyists and defense firms, ties that see millions of dollars in government spending go out from Murtha's office, and hundreds of thousands in campaign donations come in. Murtha has said his earmarking has helped revive his economically depressed district.

PMA is the second company with close ties to Murtha to be raided by federal agents recently. In January, agents from the FBI, the IRS and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service searched the office of Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems, as well as the homes of the firms' founders. The companies reportedly have received over $100 million in earmarks, thanks to Murtha's efforts.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirbusCheerlead, dc10bhx, DigitalSea and 16 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