Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:17 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 97):
I do not think that the Unions would buy moving passenger A330 production to the US.

maybe they will when XWB production is ramped up and there is only a trickle of A330 pax orders.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:39 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 100):
maybe they will when XWB production is ramped up and there is only a trickle of A330 pax orders.

The unions will want all jobs to stay and new ones added. Boeing had the same basic issue during its last negotiations.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:19 pm

IMO it will depend on the state of the economy when the A350 arrives, besides a trickle will not be much of a prize for the US.
 
mascmo
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:56 pm

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

Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:32 pm

The USAF needs to go with Boeing. Simply because they need to buy American made! Now I know parts of Boeing airplanes are made outside the US but atleast the money would be going to a US company.

By they way, do Boeing planes have a little sticker on them that says "Made in America?"  sarcastic 
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:48 pm



Quoting Mascmo (Reply 103):
The USAF needs to go with Boeing. Simply because they need to buy American made! Now I know parts of Boeing airplanes are made outside the US but at least the money would be going to a US company.

One should note that while the USAF's "check" will go to Boeing, Boeing will proceed to then send part of that money to those foreign companies that provide 767 structures and components.

Just as should Airbus cash the check, they will then proceed to send part of that back to American companies that provide A330 components.
 
mascmo
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:56 pm

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

Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:03 am

I understand that but its just the principle and I guess I have a slight bias for Boeing anyways.

[Edited 2009-02-11 16:05:04]
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:27 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 77):
So he should have let the American taxpayer get fleeced on the lease deal?

Lease/purchase deals always cost more than straight cash deals. Just look at buying a car.

The goal of the lease/purchase deal was to get orders moving as fast as possible, minimizing job loss as much as possible. We're talking post 9/11 here and workers building planes didn't make any long term financial plans during that time.

McCain then killed the deal and took credit for saving the taxpayers all that money. But he didn't mention the unemployment benefits paid out, food stamps handed out, Medicaid benefits awarded, etc, because of the lost jobs. Or the loss of tax revenues lost because workers lost their jobs.

Major problems hit because of the ignorance and greed of some people in the AF and Boeing.

I could care less about the crooks and how long they get in jail.

I do care about the workers who lost their job. I worked for a company once that went under and can well remember how that feels.

Have you noticed that the politicians have never let us know the net numbers from killing the deal. Net includes loss of personal income tax revenues from workers laid off and all benefits paid out to workers laid off. Oh, and the tax on Boeing's profits from the deal.

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

So what's "best"? A BMW is better than a Lexus? Not for me as I once owned a BMW ('68 2002) and it had a horrid cooling system. Had to pullover in slow LA traffic during the summer and couldn't dream of having an air conditioner installed.

Maybe what is "best" today is the option that puts the most jobs in place, with minimizing job loss as one critical factor.

Personally I believe that the "best" option for that money is in applying it to local companies, local jobs, keeping people from being kicked out of their home because their job was sent overseas, taking care of returning and long term vets, etc.

In the past 4 to 5 months the severity of our financial situation has pretty well made the KC-X program as unimportant as a CitiBank bash in Las Vegas.

Right now the KC-X reminds me of another aircraft - the Spruce Goose.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

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

Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:06 am



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 90):
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.

In order to let the Buy American sentiment settle down some and open the way for a competition?
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

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

Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:03 am

Mascmo From United States, joined Mar 2008, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted Thu Feb 12 2009 00:32:46 your local time (3 hours 27 minutes 55 secs ago) and read 63 times:


The USAF needs to go with Boeing. Simply because they need to buy American made! Now I know parts of Boeing airplanes are made outside the US but atleast the money would be going to a US company.

By they way, do Boeing planes have a little sticker on them that says "Made in America?" [/quote]
For what money, money lended again? Very wise decision to lend more and more to promote US industry.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2862
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

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

Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:33 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 106):
The goal of the lease/purchase deal was to get orders moving as fast as possible, minimizing job loss as much as possible. We're talking post 9/11 here and workers building planes didn't make any long term financial plans during that time.

The first tankers won't arrive till at least 10 years after the original lease deal would have delivered the first tanker.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:47 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 69):
Sounds like the Robert Gates and the Air Force are about to be told "dual buy" or nothing:

Would that be such a bad thing, given the difference in capacity/capability? It may allow greater flexibility..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
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.

IIRC it takes in more than the whole of the rest of BAE Systems....

Quoting Alien (Reply 85):
The big decisions are made in the UK and the profits go offshore.

Up to now, the profits have been reinvested in the USA, along with substantial additional amounts of UK cash.....
The only big decision made in the UK was to grow in the USA.
All operational decisions in the USA are made by BAE Systems Inc.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
To me, the big thing is the jobs and the technology stay here.

Indeed  thumbsup 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
If Airbus agrees to not only build the KC-30B here

Or even NG/EADS....  Wink

Rgds
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:06 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 69):
Sounds like the Robert Gates and the Air Force are about to be told "dual buy" or nothing:

If Obama or his new Deputy SECDEF say it, I'm a believer. Otherwise....
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:49 pm

Murtha's mouth is running again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/02/16/AR2009021601020.html

IMHO, the translation is, "Gates, don't worry about the money because it is only money!" Jobs are the important issue right now, and jobs associated with a dual purchase would cushion the blow that Boeing is beginning to see with the economy slowing and provide jobs in a key Republican state (alright more political than job creation concern).
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:43 pm

I believe that Murtha's problem is that the money is moving away from the military - especially with the money for the bank bailouts and the stimulus package.

It seems to me that teh power& influence of a committee chairman is directly related to the amount of money he (or she) controls. Murtha is slipping a bit because a lot of money is heading towards financial institutions, infrastructure development, etc. Even education is getting a boost.  gasp 

The dual buy appears to me to be nothing more than an effort to "do something" in order to keep the power and influence.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:48 pm

Murtha is from Pennsylvania and Boeing's CSAR-X will be built in his state. So he has a vested interest (as does, ironically, Boeing) to throw the Republicans a bone to get them to vote in favor of upholding the original CSAR-X contract award to Boeing.

If that means letting Alabama build some A330MRTTs for the USAF in addition to the KC-767s Boeing will be providing...
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:31 pm



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 108):
Now I know parts of Boeing airplanes are made outside the US but atleast the money would be going to a US company.

if those parts are sourced from non American factories, how do you think Boeing pays for them? by only paying the US subsidiary of the Japanese and Italian companies involved????
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27037
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:55 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 114):
Murtha is from Pennsylvania and Boeing's CSAR-X will be built in his state. So he has a vested interest (as does, ironically, Boeing) to throw the Republicans a bone to get them to vote in favor of upholding the original CSAR-X contract award to Boeing.

He doesn't get to vote on the CSAR-X issue yet. The only one who gets a vote for now is the DoD. I'm sure he can try to influence them, but he doesn't get a vote. Once DoD/ makes the award (again) and it passes muster after the inevitable protests (if ever), it's up to Congress to fund the program or not and then he gets a vote.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

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

Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:30 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 115):


if those parts are sourced from non American factories, how do you think Boeing pays for them? by only paying the US subsidiary of the Japanese and Italian companies involved????

Wrong quoted, I didn´t say that.
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:48 pm

sorry I used the quote select feature, dunno how that happened , it should have been Macsmo
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11534
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

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

Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:48 pm

Looks like Boeing is coming out on the practical, "lets get it done" side of the whole tanker issue and is "open" to a split order:

Quote:
Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's defense unit, said it appeared the Pentagon will use a winner-take-all competition to build the plane. But the Chicago-based company will support any shift to a split contract, he added.

"We are going to support whatever type of acquisition that our customer wants to put in place," Albaugh said in a phone interview.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97NMON00.htm

Not the most definitive statement ever made but it appears that they are being practical: Half the pie is better than the risk of none.

And comments by Northrop Grumman partner EADS also indicate the same attitude:

Quote:
Bayle confirmed comments by EADS CEO Louis Gallois in The New York Times that the Northrop-EADS team would consider dividing the contract with Boeing as long as EADS could build at least 12 planes annually.

Gallois said that number is needed to support building a factory in Mobile, Ala.

Of course Gates is still dead set against a split:

Quote:
...U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s position on the possibility of a split buy of Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force, .... “I am laying my body down across the tracks” in opposition to it, he told an audience of officers at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., on April 15.

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/s...ntinues_to_Oppose_Split_Tanker_Buy

Tugg
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:36 pm

I still think a buy of 60 KC-30As to replace the KC-10 fleet is not a bad idea, especially if on top of that Airbus agrees to move A330MRTT, KC-30B and A330-200F production to the line, which would then keep it moving at one a month for more then the five years needed to replace the KC-10s.

Boeing can then land a 160 frame KC-767ADV order to add to the remaining ~60 767-300ER and 767-300F models. That's 10 years of production at two per month. And it would allow the Air Force to send the ANG and USAFR 160 KC-135Rs to replace their KC-135E fleet.

After a decade, you can then decide how many more of each model you need to meet demand and handle KC-135R replacements. Yes, it's more expensive then just buying only KC-30As or KC-767s, but it does give the USAF some more flexibility and it brings even more aerospace jobs into the United States (thanks to two production lines).
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

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

Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:01 am

I don't think a split order will be possible unless the USAF retires a tanker type, and the KC-10's are the easiest target; they can be replaced by KC-30's.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:02 am

With things changing in the commercial aviation sector does the AF really know what it wants? A decision in March '10 - after the 787 (hopefully) has been entered into service and is starting to show how well it performs? More data available on the 350 and the 748 moving along? Why does a decision really need to be made at a turning point in the industry when new generations may be a far wiser decision?

Personally I believe that McCain and the AF blew it on the original lease/purchase deal. Send the bad guys (gal?) to prison and keep initial deliveries starting 10 years ago. That would have let the AF wait for new generations to be firmed up before making this round of acquisitions.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:12 am

So you think that the original deal was good for the US taxpayers?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:37 pm

I think Boeing feels another comaparison based on capabilities and meeting USAF requirements is not a sure win for the KC767, to state it mildly. Also they might there not enough political power / time to have people bend the rules (adjust specs, selection process).

So they are going for half the cake to avoid the match they know they won't win by the current rules / requirements.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 113):
It seems to me that teh power& influence of a committee chairman is directly related to the amount of money he (or she) controls. Murtha is slipping a bit because a lot of money is heading towards financial institutions, infrastructure development, etc. Even education is getting a boost.

Murtha might be busy with some other tax payer infrastructure development topics in the mean time. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=7412160&page=1
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:31 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 123):
So you think that the original deal was good for the US taxpayers?

When you consider that the original post 9/11 lease purchase was designed to keep employment up at companies that would be providing parts as well as those at Boeing - yes I believe it was a good deal. The AF would also benefit a bit by having some of those planes flying right now.

By not continuing with the deal we face several situations:

Direct purchases will cost less than a lease/purchase, but let's add about 10 years of inflation to the costs of this upcoming deal.

Workers who would have been paying taxes at every level from local to state became unemployed, taking money out of the Treasury (unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) and I doubt very seriously that anyone has bothered to sit down and get an accurate picture of just how big that swing between funds flowing to funds flowing out really is.

End result? The new plane will be more expensive, a lot of workers in various companies have lost their jobs, we've gone from cash flowing into the Treasury to funds flowing out of the Treasury for those that were laid off and we are buying a plane (either A or B) at the end of their product life. Oh, and the AF didn't have the use of those lost tankers.

Personally I think we are past the time for the 767 or 330 lines for a new tanker. Better to wait until we can look at 787/350 planes and rethink the 777 and 748. The delay will allow the most modern plane and will give the AF time to rethink what they will be needing after the Bush Years.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:28 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 123):
So you think that the original deal was good for the US taxpayers?

It is certainly sounding like it. I read a GAO report noting that the USAF is spending a few billion a year to keep the KC-135 fleet in the air, so by the time KC-X arrives, we'll be close to the $100 billion the original purchase and lease deal would have cost - and then we have to actually spend hundreds of billions more to buy the new planes.

 banghead 
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:35 pm

Perhaps if there had not been the other issues, the Boeing MIGHT have got the job reasonably fair and square.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:24 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 127):
Perhaps if there had not been the other issues, the Boeing MIGHT have got the job reasonably fair and square.

As I recall it was a Boeing employee AND an AF employee. Boeing paid a very hefty fine and the AF, of course, avoided organizational blame. The problem was at the individual level, not the organizational level.

The problem was that McCain wanted to get credit for stopping the deal and "saving" the taxpayers millions. No one bothered to calculate the swing in cash flow for the Treasury as a result of this saving.

In my book we would have been better off letting the courts take care of the problem children and continued on with the program. The AF would be flying some new tankers right now and there would have been a reduction in post 9/11 job losses at Boeing.

Now I don't see investing money in "old generation" planes when the newest generations are not that far away. While it would have worked in 2001/2002 technology has changed and we need to wait for the 787/350.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:56 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 128):
The problem was that McCain wanted to get credit for stopping the deal and "saving" the taxpayers millions. No one bothered to calculate the swing in cash flow for the Treasury as a result of this saving.

In my book we would have been better off letting the courts take care of the problem children and continued on with the program. The AF would be flying some new tankers right now and there would have been a reduction in post 9/11 job losses at Boeing.

Now I don't see investing money in "old generation" planes when the newest generations are not that far away. While it would have worked in 2001/2002 technology has changed and we need to wait for the 787/350.

The problem was that the taxpayer wasn't getting a good enough deal compared to the price they were paying. Even in the last KC-X competition, we did see Boeing produce a better deal for the price. If you compared Boeing's proposed KC-767 Advanced to the lease proposal KC-767, what was proposed is a significant improvement compared to the old lease deal.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:01 pm

Direct purchases are always better than a lease purchase and, after the problem was taken care of in the courts Boeing could probably have been squeezed a bit more.

The end result, however, is that workers not involved in the scandal were laid off, changing the direction of their personal cash flow with the Treasury, and the AF isn't flying any new tankers these days.

If McCain can delay the tankers back then maybe he can do it again until the 787/350 are ready.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27037
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:34 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 125):
Direct purchases will cost less than a lease/purchase, but let's add about 10 years of inflation to the costs of this upcoming deal.

Yes, but on the positive side, there are 10 years of tech improvement.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 125):
Workers who would have been paying taxes at every level from local to state became unemployed, taking money out of the Treasury (unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) and I doubt very seriously that anyone has bothered to sit down and get an accurate picture of just how big that swing between funds flowing to funds flowing out really is.

Baloney. Boeing is still making 767s for UPS et al, and record numbers of all aircraft types. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 128):
As I recall it was a Boeing employee AND an AF employee.

Two Boeing employees and a civilian DoD employee, actually.

Quote:
In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Some documents found in congressional investigation indicated the A330-based tanker met more of the USAF specifications than the Boeing tanker and had a lower proposed cost.[10][11][verification needed] Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[12] Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
The end result, however, is that workers not involved in the scandal were laid off, changing the direction of their personal cash flow with the Treasury, and the AF isn't flying any new tankers these days.

And yet in that time frame the USAF has had no issues dealing with the intense air campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan. Having 500 KC-135s to choose from can do that for you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
If McCain can delay the tankers back then maybe he can do it again until the 787/350 are ready.

 checkmark 

I honestly don't think the KC-X program will get funded in the next few years. It's too hot a potato, and we got too many other things needing to be funded.

Quote:


[quote=Stitch,reply=126]It is certainly sounding like it. I read a GAO report noting that the USAF is spending a few billion a year to keep the KC-135 fleet in the air, so by the time KC-X arrives, we'll be close to the $100 billion the original purchase and lease deal would have cost - and then we have to actually spend hundreds of billions more to buy the new planes.

It's like the old joke of asking the accountant what your profit is, and s/he saying "what do you want it to be"?

Here's an interesting quote from Aug 2008:

Quote:
John Young, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, surprised me in his testimony last month. Here's what he said:

"The truth is, KC-135s currently have, on average, 17,000 hours and they have a structural life of 36,000 to 39,000 hours. Those airplanes have plenty of life. We could continue with those airplanes structurally. Those airplanes were designed in a time where we developed more robust structures. Today's airplanes have less robust structures. I think it remains to be seen whether [newer] planes can serve for 25, 40 or 50 years."

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ow-urgent-is-the-kc135-replac.html
 
Ken777
Posts: 10199
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:48 pm

Go back to the original intent of the tanker deal - as I understand it. It was after 9/11 and there was a desire to maintain employment levels at Boeing while bringing some tankers into the AF. The AF didn't get the tankers so the only question is the employee count the day before 9/11 and the employee count over the years since.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27037
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:09 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 132):
Go back to the original intent of the tanker deal - as I understand it. It was after 9/11 and there was a desire to maintain employment levels at Boeing while bringing some tankers into the AF. The AF didn't get the tankers so the only question is the employee count the day before 9/11 and the employee count over the years since.

There were lots of "make work" packages post 9-11. Thankfully not many got funded. Personally, I don't want my taxes going to fund "make work" projects both then and now.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

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

Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:50 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 33):
It was Airbus who turned it down based on the excessive work it demanded to the wing.

Do you happen to know if weight or diameter was the problem?

If it was diameter, there's an obvious solution: use the -2B which has a smaller fan. However, the thrust is suboptimal for the A330 and would need to be increased. Obviously, the LPC stage that was taken out of the engine would have to be re-inserted. But then the question is: Is it necessary to also restore the last LPT stage which is also missing on the -2B?

I'd really be interested what percentage of its power is used to to drive the larger fan respectively the additional booster stage on the baseline -1B version.

Obviously, the engine version I suggest would have a lower bypass ratio and thus be less efficient. But I guess a ~10% reduction in fuel burn would still be very attractive.


A342
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Fri May 01, 2009 10:15 pm

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House has enlisted Pelosi to "persuade" Murtha to drop this split buy thing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124120980225878383.html

DodBuzz is on it as well:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-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 May 03, 2009 2:20 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 135):
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House has enlisted Pelosi to "persuade" Murtha to drop this split buy thing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124120980225878383.html

DodBuzz is on it as well:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/mu...-buy/

I really don't see any movement on a new build tanker by Congress before 2011. I think they want to save this subject for the 2012 mid-term Congressional elections.

So, for what it is worth, the KC-X program is dead for 2010, from a Congressional standpoint.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed May 06, 2009 8:41 pm

Meanwhile above the clouds;

French KC-135 tops up Australian A330 MRTT

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/FrenchKC135AustralianA330MRRT.jpg?t=1241642348
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Fri May 08, 2009 2:34 pm

Great picture, Keesje. Do you know if fuel was actually transferred, or is that the "dry" contact tests? Do you have any news on the RAAF KC-30B program?

Looking at the Boom on the French C-135FR, the positition of the KC-30B is approximately 3-5 degrees to the right of the centerline, 28 degrees down Boom position, and the extennsion is about 12'. Both aircraft seem to be in a 15 degree bank to the right, with the KC-30's turn slightly inside of the KC-135. Perhaps he is using the slight turn cut-off to help maintane position, that would be normal.

What are the red objects on the lower surfaces on the wingtips and the horizontal stabilizer tips of the KC-30B?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri May 08, 2009 4:35 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 138):
Looking at the Boom on the French C-135FR, the positition of the KC-30B is approximately 3-5 degrees to the right of the centerline, 28 degrees down Boom position, and the extennsion is about 12'. Both aircraft seem to be in a 15 degree bank to the right, with the KC-30's turn slightly inside of the KC-135. Perhaps he is using the slight turn cut-off to help maintane position, that would be normal.

 Yeah sure you obviously have been flying around in tankers to long  bigthumbsup 

This test happen 2 weeks ago & fuel was transferred.

After completing testing of the flight control laws of the new A330 MRTT as a receiver aircraft with the Airbus Military A310 Boom Demonstrator, in which the A310 tanker made more than 80 con-tacts, Airbus Military has further validated the receiver flight control laws of the A330 MRTT with a French Air Force KC-135 Aircraft.

Two flights involving 20 contacts have been performed between the first Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A (A330 MRTT) and the French KC-135 aircraft. The support of the French Air Force to the Australian A330 MRTT program has been possible thanks to a technical agreement between the Minister of Defence of the French Republic and the Minister for Defence of Australia on co-operation in the field of defence armament concerning tanker aircraft in which a series of flight trials will be performed with a French tanker and different receiver aircraft.

Since commencement of the second flight test phase last December, Airbus Military has performed a range of testing; including tanker and re-ceiver flight control laws validation, underwing pod testing, boom data gathering and envelope expansion as well as MIDS, Link 16 and military avionics and mission testing, logging a total of 102 flights.


i think 3 booms are in th test program. 1 Boom in a test rig in Spain, 1 under the Australian A330 MRTT and one under a A310 MRTT. The last has transferred fuel since march 08.
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat May 09, 2009 12:16 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 131):
I honestly don't think the KC-X program will get funded in the next few years. It's too hot a potato, and we got too many other things needing to be funded.

wasn't at least one of the rationales for cutting F22s etc that KCX was more important to the AF?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sat May 09, 2009 3:42 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 140):
wasn't at least one of the rationales for cutting F22s etc that KCX was more important to the AF?

That is correct, Trex8. But, now that the end of the F-22 production has been established, no one is really talking about the KC-X program. There are still too many badly needed weapons systems programs and not enough dollars to go around. With King Barack I wanting a 10% DOD budget cut in FY 2010, and the SecDef saluting sharply, saying "by your command, sire" I doubt we will see the KC-X program major funding next year.

The 10% reduction will not be across the boards, only a few programs will be cut by 10%, most programs will be cut more. Look for the "red state, blue state" production programs to see which will get full funding, and which will be drasticly reduced.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27037
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat May 09, 2009 5:50 pm

Surprisingly enough, the 2010 budget sent to congress has "set in motion plans to restart this summer the Air Force's controversial effort to buy new aerial refueling aircraft"

Ref: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4078728&c=AME&s=TOP

So it seems the Obama Administration is willing to toss around the hot potato?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Sat May 09, 2009 8:38 pm

This has a more immediate impact on the C-17 decision but Senator Patti Murray has introduced an amendment to make DOD answer for any impacts on the industrial base--ours.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090507/BLOG01/905079979/0/BIZ

Quote:
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray added in an amendment to a weapons acquisitions bill, forcing the Pentagon to notify Congress if pulling a weapons program will adversely affect the nation’s industrial base.
* * * * * *
But Murray has more on her mind than Boeing’s existing defense programs. The Pentagon is set to restart its drawn-out Air Force tanker contest this summer, for which Boeing likely will offer its Everett-assembled KC-767.

In her Senate speech, Murray made clear that she wants the industrial base considered in acquisitions, period.

“This legislation should only be a first step in our efforts to address procurement issues. I strongly believe that we also need to begin a national conversation on how procurement decisions affect our nation’s industrial base, including the aerospace workers that help our military meet their needs. …

“Acquisition reform must take into account the future needs of our military and our industrial base and ensure that rules limiting cost overruns are enforced. The legislation that we passed today will force the Pentagon to take a new approach to a broken process.”

Things are worse for Senators Sessions & Shelby than the last time around. They don't have a prayer of sustaining a filibuster if Senator Murray can bring this thing to the floor.

Also, I'm flattered that she seems to be reading my posts here in Mil-Av!  duck 
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat May 09, 2009 11:03 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 143):
This has a more immediate impact on the C-17 decision

In more then one way I think the KC-45 could carry up to 32 463L pallets/ 52t long haul at efficiencies that never can be met by C-17s. The C5M fleet + hundreds of KC45s would not help future C-17 purchases. A dedicated tanker / less cargo capable fleet would be more beneficial.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Sun May 10, 2009 12:32 am

Keesje, the tanker debate will not hinge on pallets. You would need the Bush administration back for a strictly aircraft-to-aircraft comparison to influence the results.

BTW, the designation "KC-45" is reserved for the USAF's next tanker. If you are stating the KC-30 is now the KC-45, that is simply wrong--Northrop-Grumman's web site notwithstanding.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sun May 10, 2009 2:07 am

Keesje, the current KC-135 and KC-10 are not much more than "box carriers" in the cargo role. The KC-30 or KC-767 would be the same. I fail to see your 32 463L pallet configueration in a KC-30, and the 52 tonne long haul cargo weight is slightly less cargo weight than the KC-767AT (B-767-200LRF) would carry. Yes, the KC-767AT actually can carried more cargo weight than your KC-30A can.

Lumberton, the USAF will now only use the KC-45A MDS if the KC-30A (A-330-200MRTT) is selected again. A KC-767AT (B-767-200LRF) selection will need a new MDS as it is a different airplane and the KC-45A designation has already been used, perhaps it will be designated the KC-46A. If EADS competes the A-330-200F airframe, and wins with it, it could be designated the KC-45B.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 142):
Ref: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...s=TOP

Did anyone pick up on funding for the YAL-1 program? Is there going to be a second airplane built? Since the B-747-400F airframe is out of production, will this be a B-747-8F airframe? Doesn't the USAF already "own" the current YAL-1A airframe?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4078728&c=AME&s=TOP

"On missile defense, the administration is seeking to buy only a single Airborne Laser aircraft due to "affordability and technology problems," while terminating the Multiple Kill Vehicle effort "because of significant technical challenges," according to the summary. Defense officials said they also terminated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program because of technological issues."
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon May 11, 2009 3:30 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 146):
The KC-30 or KC-767 would be the same. I fail to see your 32 463L pallet configueration in a KC-30, and the 52 tonne long haul cargo weight is slightly less cargo weight than the KC-767AT (B-767-200LRF) would carry. Yes, the KC-767AT actually can carried more cargo weight than your KC-30A can.

I think the only area the KC767 outperformes the KC30 was support in US congress. Out of the last 5 global tanker competition EADS won 5 out of 5 (incl. USAF) and I think Boeing has little hope to sell further KC767s outside the USAF.

http://blog.al.com/pr/2007/07/KC-30_spider_chart.jpg
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon May 11, 2009 4:08 pm

Keesje, you know better than to bring up that old (2006-2007) NG spider chart that a lot of folks here have proven to be grossly in error.

You are wrong, again on your assumption on the KC-30 and KC-767 comparisons. The US Government report that threw out the KC-30 selection clearly says the numbers and assumptions used by the USAF for the KC-30, and against the KC-767 were inaccurate. Also the total costs of "ownership" (contract purchase price, except the 4 SDD aircraft, operating costs, maintenance costs, depot costs, and future system expansion costs) were much lower with the KC-767 than the KC-30.

Then there is still the ramp space issue, and the fact the KC-30 burns more fuel per flying hour, and the self defense issues. The KC-767 proves to have a higher crew survivorability in combat, than the KC-30 does.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Mon May 11, 2009 5:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 148):
Then there is still the ramp space issue, and the fact the KC-30 burns more fuel per flying hour, and the self defense issues. The KC-767 proves to have a higher crew survivorability in combat, than the KC-30 does.

You forgot that the KC30 failed to prove it could refuel all assets as requested, and NG intentionaly failed a major requirement to transition servicing to USAF within 2 years.

Dunno about you but I call something that fails 2 major requirements "winning" over a something that didn't fail a single one something other than "winning". Most of those labels denote the need for a criminal investgation, which suprisingly hasn't happened.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airmad and 8 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