Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3121
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:34 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
He is certainty is no politician.

Sorry, you don't pin on 4 stars and reach Chief of Staff of the Air Force without being at least a little bit of a politician. Hell, you don't get to be a squadron commander in the Air Force without being a bit of a politician.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:00 pm



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 100):
Hell, you don't get to be a squadron commander in the Air Force without being a bit of a politician.

 checkmark 
However, every now and then, the USAF lets one sneak through, but its extremely rare, as in BG Robin Olds.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:45 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 40):
How was it declared "irrelevent" by Boeing? The GAO ruled that the USAF's selection was not in accordance with the procurement laws/regulations. Boeing just filed the protest, which is the right of any bidder.

It was Boeings FIRST protest in its history. Should say something

Zeke and others keep trying to forget is that NG INTENTIONALY failed a requirement. To the extent that even an illegal request by the USAF to correct the failure didn't produce a change. This wasn't a mistake, they had no intention of meeting the requirement.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
No, Boeing told the GAO that the KC-30 could not fly faster than M0.83, and submitted the FAA TCDS as evidence.

Funny thing about that. The USAF and NG both couldn't explain it away. Airbus/NG also requested a change to break away proceedure to DIVE away instead of climb. Doesn't take a mensa member to know exactly why diving down in this case is a very very stupid idea. NG couldn't refute that the KC30 failed to meet the requirements for current USAF break away procedure.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 83):
Was there not some back door communication where Boeing was told that the 777 was too large, I remember somthing about that whether it was a a.net rumour is the key.

Doesn't matter, they were told to make ONE proposal, and doing some quick math the 767 maxed out the extra credit allowed based on extra capacity over the KC135. So a 777 would get 0 extra points over a 767 while having extra liablity in cost. Turns out the USAF decided to ignore what they wrote and awared extra credit for size and ignore cost issues
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:11 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
It was Boeings FIRST protest in its history

I was of the understanding the protested something before (non USAF), this was from my understanding the first USAF protest.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
Zeke and others keep trying to forget is that NG INTENTIONALY failed a requirement.

And what REQUIREMENT would that be, i.e. KPP threshold ?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
The USAF and NG both couldn't explain it away.

When did NG get an opportunity to explain it away ? I do not recall them being called as a witness. Also NG under the GAO process is not allowed to rely on any information that was not used during the original RFP submission (but Boeing was allowed to submit new information in their protest), that is why the GAO said "We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offers, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision."

That was never done.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102):
NG couldn't refute that the KC30 failed to meet the requirements for current USAF break away procedure.

The USAF does not have ONE set of refueling procedures, it changes depending on the tanker and receiver. The RFP never referred to a specific tanker or receiver aircraft, the KC-135 flight manual, KC-10 flight manual, NATO procedures etc.

The USAF NATO procedures are the same as what other NATO countries use, all the other countries seem to have no problem with the KC-30 breakaway procedures, and those countries that have already purchased the KC-30 will end up refueling USAF equipment.

I seem to recall the actual language the GAO used on this was vague, something like they were unable to determine with the available information
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:25 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 103):
I seem to recall the actual language the GAO used on this was vague, something like they were unable to determine with the available information

There were several pages of discussion, but here is the conclusion:

Quote:
In sum, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft would be able to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures as was required by this KPP No. 1 threshold.

A remarkable omission on the Air Force's part.

No one wants to mention it, but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. That is AF 447. AFAIK, there has only been this small reference in the media, but I suspect we haven't heard the last.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/business/global/17boeing.html

Quote:
American certification authorities, meanwhile, will not be able to ignore the recent mid-Atlantic crash of the A330-200 Airbus operated by Air France last week.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:57 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 104):
There were several pages of discussion, but here is the conclusion:

That is what I remember reading, so the problem was "the record", not if in fact the aircraft had the capability. If they reopened discussions, "the record" could have been set straight.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 104):
No one wants to mention it, but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. That is AF 447. AFAIK, there has only been this small reference in the media, but I suspect we haven't heard the last.

The NTSB/FAA has to get involved as the aircraft had GE CF6-80E engines. I do not see that having any impact on the USAF process. The USAF will not take into account any of the hull losses of the KC-135, 767, DC-10, 777, or the A330.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:16 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 103):
GAO said "We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offers, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision."

That was never done.

Zeke, you may recall the USAF was looking at the re-bid, last October, when the DOD took the KC-X compitition away from the USAF. You may also recall that Gen. Mosley, the CoS, and the SecAF were fired by SecD Gates for the KC-X, CSAR-X and nuclear weapons feascos.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 103):
The USAF does not have ONE set of refueling procedures, it changes depending on the tanker and receiver. The RFP never referred to a specific tanker or receiver aircraft, the KC-135 flight manual, KC-10 flight manual, NATO procedures etc.

Correct. The Breakaway procedure is an emergency procedure designed to seperate the receiver and tanker to the maximum distance in the shortest amount of time. This will vary because of the different refueling speeds and altitudes of different receivers, as well as weather and wind factors in the refueling areas and acceleration rates because of these factors. But basicly, once any crewmwmber on either aircraft orders a breakaway, the Boom Operator and receiver Pilots immediately initiate a disconnect, the receiver Pilot begins an emergency decent, the Boom Operator stream lines the Boom, and at the same time the tanker Pilot goes to full trottle (MRT or more), initially maintaning the altitude and heading he had prior to the breakaway (or bank, if in a turn). Once the is initial seperation clearance, the Boom Operator clears the tanker Pilot to begin his climb. That is the same for all Boom or Boom equipped Drogue Adapter refueling. The hose drogue refueling breakaway procedure is slightly different because the receiver and tanker already have a good initial seperation distance during the refueling.

This is why for cell refueling formations, the tankers are in echilone, spaced 1 nm apart rather than a trail formation.

But, basicly you always want the tanker to climb and the receiver to decend. Both aircraft decending (as recommended by NG) is sucicidal, as the tanker and receiver can quickly loose site of each other, perticularly in weather.

NATO uses the same breakaway procedures as the USAF. But here you are talking about, mostly Probe and Drogue refueling. For NATO Boom refueling (C-17s, E-3s, F-16s, etc.), they use the exact same USAF Boom procedure.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 104):
No one wants to mention it, but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. That is AF 447. AFAIK, there has only been this small reference in the media, but I suspect we haven't heard the last.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/business/global/17boeing.html

Quote:
American certification authorities, meanwhile, will not be able to ignore the recent mid-Atlantic crash of the A330-200 Airbus operated by Air France last week.

While that is true, at this point there is no way of determining the true cause of the AF-447 tragidy. If it is weather or airplane design (ie. strutual failure due to weather factors) that caused the accident, the USAF COULD eliminate the A-330/A-340 designs from the compitition, unless acceptable modifications are made. If this was a pilot caused accident, then it will have no bearing on the KC-X program.

Since airplanes are designed to 2.5Gs, or more, and the wing structure is designed and tested to withstand 150% of the maximum expected load factors, adverse weather factors are already designed into the structures. However, it is possible that the AF A-330 experienced never before scene weather conditions. The equitorial weather is unusual and unpredictable at times, based on my personal experience of crossing the equator many times. It would not be unusual to have gust factors coming from several different directions at about the same time. It would not be unusual, either, to see no weather at the equator.

So, at this point, the AF accident invetigation would be followed closely, but will have no bearing on the compitition until more factors and causes are known. This accident investigation will not be completed before the, currently expected selection date (March 2010) of this compitition.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:41 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 104):
No one wants to mention it, but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. That is AF 447. AFAIK, there has only been this small reference in the media, but I suspect we haven't heard the last.

The best way to guarantee we haven't heard the last I guess.

I can't see any way that it was a good idea to try and link these 2 subjects on this forum  no 

Rgds
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:17 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 107):
I can't see any way that it was a good idea to try and link these 2 subjects on this forum

At the moment, I agree with you, Astuteman. It will on become an issue IF there is somthing wrong with the basic design, that cannot be economicly fixed. But, with the lenght of time the A-340/A-330 designs have been in service, I doubt something like that will show up now. IIRC, this AF A-330 was only 3-4 years old, so it is well into the design as far as a production number goes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:21 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 106):
Both aircraft decending (as recommended by NG) is sucicidal, as the tanker and receiver can quickly loose site of each other, perticularly in weather.

I have not seen that written anywhere, so I do not know what context it was said, that is if it was said at all.

As you know the highest optimum altitude for AAR the USAF has in the manuals is FL300 (for B-52, F-4, F-15, F16, all the rest are lower), at that height I can always get a climb out of the aircraft. I can always get to FL330 even on a MTOW takeoff.

Not sure about the 77L, but I know 77W struggles to get to FL290 at MTOW, we find the A330 has better initial cruise altitude capability.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:07 pm

The B-777F has a MTOW of 766,000 lbs while the B-77W has a MTOW of 775,000 lbs The difference in the engine thrust (about 5,000 lbs per engine) is a softwear adjustment. The OEW for a KC-777 would be heavier than the B-777F, but it should have the same MTOW. Boeing has not released those numbers. But the B-777F carries the same fuel load as the current B-77W, which is about 12,000 lbs more than the B-77L.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 109):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 106):
Both aircraft decending (as recommended by NG) is sucicidal, as the tanker and receiver can quickly loose site of each other, perticularly in weather.

I have not seen that written anywhere, so I do not know what context it was said, that is if it was said at all.

It was siad in the full GAO report. Here is some of what the report said, sanitised for the internet:

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

"[a]ll KPP thresholds [relating to the aerial refueling, airlift, operational utility, and survivability areas] must be met. Depending on substantiating rationale, positive consideration will be provided for performance above the stated KPP thresholds up to the KPP objective level. No consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives. If there is no stated objective and, depending on substantiating rationale, positive consideration will be provided when the specified capability above the KPP threshold is viewed as advantageous to the Government."

The USAF was not suppose to give extra credit for exceeding the KPP thresholds. They gave NG extra credit for exceeding refueling and airlift capability.

"[f]or non-KPP requirements, the Government may give consideration for alternate proposed solutions or capabilities below the stated SRD requirement, depending on substantiating rationale. The Government may give additional consideration if the offeror proposes to meet (or exceed if there is an objective) the SRD threshold or requirement, depending on substantiating rationale."

The USAF could give extra credit for non-KPP requirements. They gave NG credit for these, but did not give Boeing credit.

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

Both the KC-30A and KC-767AT met all required KPPs, and offered numerous non-KPPs.

"Id. at 12. This assessment was documented in the SSAC’s PAR, which identified evaluated “major discriminators,” “discriminators offering less benefit” and weaknesses in each offeror’s proposal in the aerial refueling, airlift, operational utility, survivability, and “other system requirements” areas of this subfactor.[21] Id. at 13-28.


In the aerial refueling area, the SSAC noted “major discriminators” in favor of Boeing under several KPP No. 1 objectives, including its capability to [Deleted] and [Deleted], and for a “noteworthy non‑KPP/KSA capability to [Deleted]. Id. at 13.


The SSAC also noted a number of “major discriminators” in favor of Northrop Grumman in the aerial refueling area, including one under the KPP No. 2 objective for Northrop Grumman’s proposal to exceed the RFP’s fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range (Boeing’s aircraft was also evaluated as exceeding this KPP objective but to a lesser degree),[22] and for a number of non-KPP/KSA requirements, including the proposal of a better aerial refueling efficiency (more pounds of fuel offload per pound of fuel used) than Boeing’s; a “boom envelope” that was [Deleted] times greater than that defined by the Allied Technical Publication (ATP)-56[23] (Boeing proposed a boom envelope that was [Deleted] times greater than that defined by the publication); and a higher offload and receive fuel rate than Boeing. Id. at 13-14.


In the aerial refueling area, the SSAC also identified five “discriminators offering less benefit” for Boeing that were assessed under 14 different SRD requirements and one such discriminator for Northrop Grumman that was assessed under 2 SRD requirements. Id. at 15-16."

In the first para, the first delete said, in part "accomplish the breakaway manuver", the second delete defined the boom envelope for the Boeing boom, according to SSAC. The second para also discussed the boom envelope for Boeing.

"The SSAC found that Boeing’s proposal had no weaknesses in the aerial refueling area, but identified the following two weaknesses in Northrop Grumman’s proposal:

The first weakness is related to the specified lighting around the fuel receptacle of the KC-30. The specified lighting for refueling as a receiver may provide [Deleted]. The second weakness is related to Northrop Grumman’s boom approach. The [Deleted]."

This is the clincer, according to SSAC, not the GAO. While the receptacial lighting problem can easily be corrected, since the KC-45s were not built, the second delete goes into the NG breakawy and other emergency procedures in depth.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:02 pm



Quoting Beta (Reply 45):

Of course it is irrelevant. Why let something as trivial as selecting the best equipment for the men and women in harms way to interfere with throwing a bone to the military industry complex, and political campaign contribution.

This, to me, is a red herring. The simple fact is that all three aircraft under current consideration will make excellent tankers, and I doubt that a single American soldier or airman would die because of which tanker gets selected. The main difference will be in costs; and since operating and infrastructure costs will be a very big part of it, it is very difficult for us who are not in the defense establishment to get a grip on the total cost. I suspect even the military bean counters are having a hard time with it. Looking at the outlines that were in one of the referenced articles, it clearly appears that if what the AF really wants is a KC-135 replacement that will utilize existing infrastructure, then only the 767 qualifies. If they dispense with that the 777 is only very slightly larger than the A330, but offers significantly higher capacity and range. So if Boeing offers both (which is what I think they should) they would likely lose only if their prices were totally out of line.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 66):
I guess you think the DoD should get Congress to pass a law like with Medicare Part D drugs where the government cannot negotiate prices with the suppliers. I'd start buying stocks in every major defense contractor now if that happens!

And yet Medicaire Part D is the ONLY government program that I have ever known of that came in UNDER budget. It is consistently costing LESS than estimated.
 confused   confused 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:04 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 104):
No one wants to mention it, but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. That is AF 447. AFAIK, there has only been this small reference in the media, but I suspect we haven't heard the last.

Disagree completely. The A330 is a very safe airplane. Whatever caused AF 447 (if anything aircraft related did cause it), they will fix. A freak accident could happen to the 767 tomorrow, knock on wood, hope it doesn't. They are both completely proven aircraft.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:03 pm

Flighty is correct, let's wait to see what caused the loss of AF-447 before we blame anything on the A-330 airframe.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:15 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
let's wait to see what caused the loss of AF-447 before we blame anything on the A-330 airframe.

I did not intend to troll when I posted that link as I thought it was fairly obvious that given the toxic nature of this whole subject, it will be raised sooner or later. For decorum's sake, I will check fire.

[Edited 2009-06-22 15:17:22]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:28 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):

A330s every day fly higher and faster than 767s, it goes beyond any form of logic to try and suggest the KC-30 could not do something the KC-767 could not do.

I am convinced that this that is was more to do with the way the information was presented in the RFP submission rather than the actual aircraft's capability. The GAO did not do a technical analysis of the respective aircraft, it did more a forensic investigation of the Boeing protest documents, and the documents submitted in response to the RFP. NG are only allowed to rely on information they presented as part of the RFP, but Boeing is allowed (and did, eg. the FAA TCDS) introduce information about the KC-30 which was not part of the NG submission.

When the GAO wanted the USAF to reopen discussions, only then could NG update the paper trail. The GAO report did not find any problems with either aircraft, said both met the technical requirements, but it did have a problem with the information presented.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:14 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 115):
I am convinced that this that is was more to do with the way the information was presented in the RFP submission rather than the actual aircraft's capability. The GAO did not do a technical analysis of the respective aircraft, it did more a forensic investigation of the Boeing protest documents, and the documents submitted in response to the RFP.

That could be true. But, if it is, wouldn't NG/EADS-NA have some fault for loosing the GAO findings, based on the paper trail they submitted to the USAF for the RFP. Please remember, the USAF reallyy only did a paperwork evaluation of both offers, too. Yes, they did look at, or observe some of the RAAF KC-30B testing and the JASDF and Itialian AF different KC-767 testing. But they did not actually fly either airplane.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:07 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 116):
But, if it is, wouldn't NG/EADS-NA have some fault for loosing the GAO findings, based on the paper trail they submitted to the USAF for the RFP.

Of course, we saw numerous indications from Boeing that they were thinking about protesting the decision before the RFP decision was made, they should have made it bullet proof.

The GAO process is somewhat of an unfair fight, but it what people have to work with. The protester is allowed to bring whatever they want into the protest, but the party responding is only allowed to use any information that was not supplied during the RFP submission. NG has been exposed with a weakness in their submission in a number of areas, but I need to stress, that that is a weakness in their submission, not necessarily with the platform.

The GAO is basically made up of a pack a bureaucrats and lawyers, they do not need to know how to tell the difference between a 767 or A330, they are not supposed to be aviation experts, that is what the role of the USAF. The GAO just needs to make sure that the USAF has document properly on how they made the distinction.

The GAO dismissed the majority of the Boeing claims, they did not even get a mention they were that frivolous. The GAO wanted the USAF to go back to both parties to fix up their submissions.

We only saw one side of this, I am sure if people went tooth and nail through the Boeing submission you would find holes in it as well, the GAO ruled on specific protest points raised by Boeing, it made no finding in respect of Boeings overall submission.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:19 pm

I think any reasonable person would concede that all three aircraft under consideration can do the job adequately. If Airbus muffed their presentation it may be because they are new to the game; after all, Boeing has been involved with aerial refueling since it became practical, and have developed most of the technology in use today. What is going to determine the ultimate winner is going to be economics and politics; I will not predict which will be the dominant one. But for all of the Boeing fans that are trying to say that the A330 can't do the job, give me a break. I'm as big a Boeing fan as anyone, and I think the tanker should be built by Boeing because we do not know for sure whether we will be on friendly terms with Europe for the life of these tankers, and should source them domestically if possible, but that is my opinion. I would never argue that the A330 is somehow inferior in any way. It has proved itself to be a superb airliner that has become dominant in its size class, and the only functional reason to choose against it would be that it is the wrong size, not its performance. Since Boeing is now offering a tanker that will fit the KC-135 footprint as well as one that is slightly larger than the A330 but significantly more capable, I think the advantage goes to Boeing on this. As to AF447, that is totally irrelevant, as we do not what caused it, and since the A330 has been flying for close to 20 years with this being the first in-service crash it is highly unlikely that it is something that somehow makes the A330 unsafe. Whatever caused it WILL be addressed. The other thing going for Boeing is that it seems that whenever a competition of this sort gets overturned, the loser seems to have the upper hand in the followup. Certainly it worked that way in the first rematch; it would be against human nature for it not to happen again, be it right or wrong (wrong in my opinion.)
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:30 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 117):
The GAO process is somewhat of an unfair fight, but it what people have to work with. The protester is allowed to bring whatever they want into the protest, but the party responding is only allowed to use any information that was not supplied during the RFP submission. NG has been exposed with a weakness in their submission in a number of areas, but I need to stress, that that is a weakness in their submission, not necessarily with the platform.

The GAO is basically made up of a pack a bureaucrats and lawyers, they do not need to know how to tell the difference between a 767 or A330, they are not supposed to be aviation experts, that is what the role of the USAF. The GAO just needs to make sure that the USAF has document properly on how they made the distinction.

The intervenor (NG), as well as the USAF were allowed to submit documentation and evidence. Of course the protester (Boeing) was also allowed to submit documentation and evidence, too.

NG, Boeing, the USAF, and the GAO were all well represented during the GAO investigation into the KC-X bidding process.

Representing Boeing (all lawyers):

Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Martin P. Willard, Esq., Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq., Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Stephen J. Obermeier, Esq., and Heidi L. Bourgeois, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP; and Charles J. Cooper, Esq., Michael W. Kirk, Esq., and Howard C. Neilson, Esq., Cooper & Kirk; Lynda Guild Simpson, Esq., and Stephen J. Curran, Esq., The Boeing Company, for the protester.

Representing NG (lawyers, and one aviation expert, Roger Joseph O'Donnell):

Neil H. O%u2019Donnell, Esq., Allan J. Joseph, Esq., David F. Innis, Esq., Thomas D. Blanford, Esq., Aaron P. Silberman, Esq., Tyson Arbuthnot, Esq., Michelle L. Baker, Esq., James Robert Maxwell, Esq., and Suzanne M. Mellard, Esq., Rogers Joseph O%u2019Donnell; and Joseph O. Costello, Esq., Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, for the intervenor.

Reprsenting the USAF (lawyers and three members of the KC-X selection board)

Bryan R. O%u2019Boyle, 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%u2019Sullivan, 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.

The GAO only had two lawyers and one office involved in this investigation:

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

They are listed at the beginning of the GAO Report

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:11 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 119):

The intervenor (NG), as well as the USAF were allowed to submit documentation and evidence

Boeing, in their protest provided the GAO with documentation from third parties (like the FAA) about the NG RFP submission which the GAO used in the decision making.

The NG documentation was in the form of rebuttal to the GAO protest, they are not allowed to provide new information in relation to the actual RFP, the GAO did not "reopen" discussions on the actual RFP proposals from either vendor, that is not their role.

As far as the GAO is concerned, if something was not in the NG proposal, or not clear enough at the time of award, it does not exist. The GAO does not solicit further information from either party on their own RFP submission.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:15 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 120):
As far as the GAO is concerned, if something was not in the NG proposal, or not clear enough at the time of award, it does not exist.

That would be the only way to fairly decide each protest.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:43 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 120):

As far as the GAO is concerned, if something was not in the NG proposal, or not clear enough at the time of award, it does not exist. The GAO does not solicit further information from either party on their own RFP submission.

If that is true, then isn't some of the burden of the GAO's findings on the shoulders of NG/EADS for not making sure they dotted their I's and crossed their T's in the first place for an item which was a requirement?
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:05 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 122):

If that is true, then isn't some of the burden of the GAO's findings on the shoulders of NG/EADS for not making sure they dotted their I's and crossed their T's in the first place for an item which was a requirement?

Very much so, they only have themselves to blame. The USAF gave them "countless" opportunities to clarify the RFP requirements, they could have made better use of them.

At the same time in the interests of fairness, if NG were to ask a question, they are also supposed to give Boeing that same answer, so you are kind of showing your poker hand. It is a balancing act which they got wrong.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:41 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 123):
Very much so, they only have themselves to blame. The USAF gave them "countless" opportunities to clarify the RFP requirements, they could have made better use of them.

Maybe NG should have had all those lawyers they used during the GAO investigation, to double check their submittal to the USAF for the RFP?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 123):
At the same time in the interests of fairness, if NG were to ask a question, they are also supposed to give Boeing that same answer, so you are kind of showing your poker hand. It is a balancing act which they got wrong.

Mostly true. The GAO cannot share propiritory information between the intervenor and the protestor. I think the GAO did this as best they could. I am not so sure the USAF did this during the evaluation of the NG and Boeing proposals during the compitition. That is the big problem, not that NG did anything wrong, or Boeing did everything right, it is that the USAF did not treat each company fairly.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:43 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
But if Boeing were saying that then there has to be some credibility to their belief.

Hmmmm, so every public press release Boeing has made in the last few years turned out to be factually correct, no reason to suspect they have never presented information in public which was not factual ?

I didn't say Boeing said it was 'Fact'. I said Boeing believed it based on their own expertise and having worked for the USAF for the better part of a century. I would take their 'expert' opinion over some A.netter's any day of the week. That is all I was saying.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
There was a study in the early part of this decade published by the USAF that stated the A330 was too big of an aircraft for their needs

Please provide a link .... find it hard to believe, they have the KC-10.

The KC-X was intended to replace the KC-135Es in the inventory. Yes, the KC-10 is a large tanker aircraft already in the inventory, but the USAF was not looking to add another 100+ large tankers to the inventory just to replace the aging KC-135Es. The study, which was conducted in 2003, and was titled "KC-767A Report to Congress Status Brief", was quoted in this article that I found after a quick search:

Quote:
The Air Force
says that it evaluated 747, 757, 767, 777, and A330 aircraft, and found the 767 the
best candidate for the aerial refueling mission.


http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf
Look on page CRS-25

Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
Of course, their "needs" changed when NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the bidding process and the RFP was modified to accommodate the "qualities" that the A330 brought to the table.

Again, provide a link...all I have seen on this is hearsay...

Zeke, we debated this very issue almost two years ago. In January 2007 NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the RFP process unless it was changed to take into account advantages that the KC-330 had. Just a quick Google produced multiple hits. Here's just one:

Quote:
concessions were made to keep Northrop Grumman Northrop Grumman Corporation in the running...

...In an apparent nod to Northrop, the Air Force added guidelines to its request for proposals and said it will consider capabilities other than refueling (the primary use of the tanker). It said it could possibly award the contract to the "higher priced" bidder if its extra benefits "outweigh the cost difference."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Northr...ng+planes--but+barely.-a0161284231
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:00 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 125):

The KC-X was intended to replace the KC-135Es in the inventory.

Incorrect, and this is where I think Boeing got it wrong. They were not looking for a KC-135 replacement, the were looking for a new tanker. The KC-135s were to go in the process, but the replacement aircraft NEVER had to be the same size.

What other USAF aircraft has been picked because it was the same size of the current type doing the role.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 125):
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf
Look on page CRS-25

That report does nothing for me, show no analysis at all between teh types. It actually refers to the A330-300, which EADS never offered as a tanker. If I had a choice between a KC-767A and a A330-300 based tanker, I would go for the KC-767 as well, the KC-767 would just about hold more fuel.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 125):
Zeke, we debated this very issue almost two years ago. In January 2007 NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the RFP process unless it was changed to take into account advantages that the KC-330 had. Just a quick Google produced multiple hits. Here's just one:

The article is factually wrong the requirement for considering a multi-role aircraft came from the GAO http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96160.pdf it had nothing to do with NG.

"Accordingly, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense require that future studies
and analyses of replacement airlift and tanker aircraft encompass both mission areas, with the goal to identify the optimum size, mix, and time to procure a multimission aircraft that, when combined with C-5Bs, C-17s, and KC-10s, will meet those requirements.
Such an aircraft would eliminate the need to acquire two aircraft types, one for airlift and the other for refueling."

What that article says is NG wanted to know how those roles were going to assessed.

"no specifics as to how the Air Force will grade extra capabilities, a stipulation Northrop has requested from the beginning"

Which in hindsight is fair enough, as that was one main points Boeing raised in their GAO protest.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:26 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 123):
Very much so, they only have themselves to blame. The USAF gave them "countless" opportunities to clarify the RFP requirements, they could have made better use of them.

And that's the reason I object to people objecting to the appeal/GAO findings. At the end of the day there are set rules to play by. As far as I can tell both parties (A/NG & B) played by roughly the same rules for the purposes of the RFP. In the end Boeing 'won' by not allowed NG to 'win'.

Is it convulted, you bet your ass it is, but welcome to military programs. I don't know what the better tanker is *for the USAF*. I can make a guess at what is a better fit for current mission profiles. However, that means nothing about where we will be in 20 years. For all any of us know a 737/320 tanker might be the road to the future with giant zepplins for cargo.

I would say (despite the fact that you and he tend to battle) one of the few people with some *real* world insight into which AC may fit the AF's needs better does post on this forum.

Hopefully the USAF spells out *exactly* what they want *extremely* clearly in the next RFP to give *anyone* who wants to compete a fair and level playing field to compete on.

As a friend of mine often says about sports; 'If it can't be measured with a ruler, a clock or a scale, it shouldn't be in the olympics'. Same thing should apply here IMHO.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:47 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 127):
In the end Boeing 'won' by not allowed NG to 'win'.

Yes and no. I think the GAO genuinely wanted a result, and wanted the USAF to reopen discussions to finalize the tender. By throwing it back in the pool, the risk levels for products offered by Boeing and NG should be a less in the next round, except for a 777 based airframe. As the KC-30 was following the KC-767 to the market it did have the higher risk level, but the KC-767J was not the platform being offered to the USAF either.

In my view, the KC-777 would have the highest future risk level out of any tanker being offered, highest operating cost, highest engine/airframe costs, highest cost for infrastructure, longest develpment time, longest runway requirement, and possibly lowest US content of any of the available airframes.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 127):
For all any of us know a 737/320 tanker might be the road to the future with giant zepplins for cargo.

I just to not see them as being viable for anything but a training platform. They would be very geometry limted for a conventional boom, and not really built for pods on the wings.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:16 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 128):

Yes and no. I think the GAO genuinely wanted a result, and wanted the USAF to reopen discussions to finalize the tender. By throwing it back in the pool, the risk levels for products offered by Boeing and NG should be a less in the next round, except for a 777 based airframe. As the KC-30 was following the KC-767 to the market it did have the higher risk level, but the KC-767J was not the platform being offered to the USAF either.

Zeke: I should have been clearer.. Boeing won *that* round, but not allowing NG to win... Much in the same way NG won one of the opening bouts by threatening to pull out.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 128):

I just to not see them as being viable for anything but a training platform. They would be very geometry limted for a conventional boom, and not really built for pods on the wings.

Sorry I meant that as humour.. Was trying to drive at the fact that the USAF has done such a piss poor job of writing their RFPs that no one really knows what they *actually* want. My hope is the next round will be clear and concise and whoever is best able to deliver *to the specs of the RFP* wins. Period.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:17 am

I seems a split might be on the table again.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090624/BLOG01/906249989/0/BIZ
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:53 pm

Here's more on the "split buy" option.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43026&dcn=e_gvet

Quote:
Murtha has long advocated awarding the lucrative contract to the two aerospace rivals now vying for it, but he indicated he would stop short of requiring the Pentagon to pursue the split-buy strategy for the tankers.

Under language he is drafting, Murtha said the decision ultimately would be up to the Pentagon, which has steadfastly opposed buying more than one type of tanker to replace the Eisenhower-era KC-135s the Air Force now flies.

"I'll leave it up to the [Defense] secretary ... to make a decision whether one company goes or two companies go," he said during a breakfast with reporters.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:27 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
Incorrect, and this is where I think Boeing got it wrong. They were not looking for a KC-135 replacement, the were looking for a new tanker. The KC-135s were to go in the process, but the replacement aircraft NEVER had to be the same size.

Zeke, there is no one looking at replacing the current KC-135R/T fleet, only the now simi retired KC-135E fleet (I believe ony about 20 KC-135Es have "retired" and 115 are in "flyable storge"). The replacement tanker, according to the RFP had to exceed the capabilities of the KC-135R. Yes, there was no requirement the replacement had to be the same size as the KC-135, as there is no production airplane that can do that, exactly.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
What other USAF aircraft has been picked because it was the same size of the current type doing the role.

The C-17A and C-141B have the same cargo compartment volume, but the compartments are shaped differently and the C-17 carries more weight. The C-130Es are being replaced by C-130Js.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
"Accordingly, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense require that future studies
and analyses of replacement airlift and tanker aircraft encompass both mission areas, with the goal to identify the optimum size, mix, and time to procure a multimission aircraft that, when combined with C-5Bs, C-17s, and KC-10s, will meet those requirements. Such an aircraft would eliminate the need to acquire two aircraft types, one for airlift and the other for refueling."

Currently, the only "off the shelf" aircraft that can do that is the B-747-8F, bigger than the KC-10 and C-17, but smaller than the C-5. However, the B-747F nose door is smaller than that on the C-5, or the aft cargo doors on the C-5 or C-17. The side cargo door on the B-747F is about the same size as the one on the KC-10.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 127):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 123):
Very much so, they only have themselves to blame. The USAF gave them "countless" opportunities to clarify the RFP requirements, they could have made better use of them.

And that's the reason I object to people objecting to the appeal/GAO findings. At the end of the day there are set rules to play by. As far as I can tell both parties (A/NG & B) played by roughly the same rules for the purposes of the RFP. In the end Boeing 'won' by not allowed NG to 'win'.

Correct, both NG and B essentially played by the rules. It is the USAF who was caught treating the companies differently by the GAO.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 128):
In my view, the KC-777 would have the highest future risk level out of any tanker being offered, highest operating cost, highest engine/airframe costs, highest cost for infrastructure, longest develpment time, longest runway requirement,

That is mostly correct. We do not know the TO performance that Boeing could offer on a KC-777. All we can assume right now is it will be the same as the current B-777-200LR/LRF. But, even though a KC-777 may be the highest risk, it also has offers the most benifits.

Additionally, even though NG has said they will not offer a tanker version of the A-330-200F, that is not really their call. EADS will decide which airplane NG will offer. Of course, NG will have the rights to walk away, from any EADS offer, if it is not the original A-330MRTT.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 128):
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 127):
For all any of us know a 737/320 tanker might be the road to the future with giant zepplins for cargo.

I just to not see them as being viable for anything but a training platform. They would be very geometry limted for a conventional boom, and not really built for pods on the wings.

Even though there will be no tanker version of either the B-737NG or A-32X, there are weapons pods designed for the B-737NG wing, on the P-8A/I. It wouldn't be hard to change those pods to WARPS.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:55 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
The KC-X was intended to replace the KC-135Es in the inventory.

Incorrect, and this is where I think Boeing got it wrong. They were not looking for a KC-135 replacement, the were looking for a new tanker. The KC-135s were to go in the process, but the replacement aircraft NEVER had to be the same size.

As has been pointed out already, the KC-X was/is intended to replace the handful of 135Es that were not upgraded to R models. As for the same size, well, of course the USAF didn't specify the same size because there are no aircraft in production that are the same size as the KC-135s. If the KC-135 production line were still open, regardless of the age of the design, I'm sure the USAF would have just sole-sourced the project and ordered up ~100 new KC-135s.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
That report does nothing for me, show no analysis at all between teh types. It actually refers to the A330-300, which EADS never offered as a tanker. If I had a choice between a KC-767A and a A330-300 based tanker, I would go for the KC-767 as well, the KC-767 would just about hold more fuel.

At the time of that report, there wasn't even a KC-767A under consideration, either. So it really was a choice between a stock 767 and A330. Without going back and reading through it, I suspect the reason a preference was given for the 767 frame is because it was the next size up from a KC-135 that was still relatively close in size to the KC-135. And that played well to the at-the-time belief that the 767 airframe would require the least modifications to existing infrastructure (the old "footprint" argument).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 126):
The article is factually wrong the requirement for considering a multi-role aircraft came from the GAO http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96160.pdf it had nothing to do with NG.

Not quite true as the GAO has no authority to "require" anything from anyone in the US government. They can only make recommendations. The GAO is staffed by attorneys and bean-counters and their primary goal is watching how money is spent, and if it's spent correctly. Their recommendations are based on monetary considerations; hence, their recommendation that the USAF purchase a multi-role aircraft because it might save expenditures in other areas. By analogy, they would probably recommend the USAF buy ONE airframe that could act as a fighter and strategic bomber. From a taxpayer's standpoint, that would be ideal. But from a warfighters standpoint, not very feasible. (And I'm not implying that a multi-role tanker is not feasible!)

Regardless, that report you cite is from 1996 - long before the KC-X program got legs. And to prove the point that it was only a "recommendation", the original KC-X program which eventually came out years later gave very little weight to the concept of a multi-role tanker aircraft.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:01 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 129):
Was trying to drive at the fact that the USAF has done such a piss poor job of writing their RFPs that no one really knows what they *actually* want. My hope is the next round will be clear and concise and whoever is best able to deliver *to the specs of the RFP* wins. Period.

The problem is that there are now three very distinct aircraft vying for the prize. Unless the RFP writers can be imported from Mars they will be very aware of this, and also aware that whatever they write will almost by necessity be biased to one of the three planes, and they will also be aware of which one. How much fuel do they want to carry and what range do they want? Defining just these quantities will define which aircraft they want. Do they want to use existing facilities to hangar and service the planes? Congratulations, you have just narrowed your field down to one. It is not the ordinary military RFP, where they are looking for new designs, but an attempt to adapt an off-the-shelf airliner to the military mission. It is totally unrealistic to do it this way; ideally, the AF brass should analyze the specs of the airliners in question, determine which meets their requirements the best, and then negotiate with the manufacturer to get the modifications they need and the best price they can get. Unfortunately that's what was supposed to happen the first time, and the result was people going to jail because it was so tempting to pad their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. The next result was the competition, which has proved to be just as much of a farce. It may be that the only way to resolve it without a bunch more people going to jail is the split order. I can see why the military is against this, and I think they are exactly right. But political realities may force it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:40 pm

SEPilot, I agree. The USAF needs to write in more mission specific requirements (XX K lbs fuel offload at XXXX nm, with XX hours/minutes holding time, and/or carry XX K lbs cargo and or XXX pax XXXX nm unrefueled, and/or carry XXX litters aeromedical airlift, and or C3/C4 capability, and/or XXX self defense capability) and must fit in with exsisting and/or planned infastructure with no more than $XXX M required for modification of the infastructure.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
The C-17A and C-141B have the same cargo compartment volume, but the compartments are shaped differently and the C-17 carries more weight. The C-130Es are being replaced by C-130Js

C-17s were sized around the M1, nothing really to do with the C-141. The C-141 was sized around a payload mass. C-130 is a C-130, like saying the F-15A being replaced by a F-15E.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
Currently, the only "off the shelf" aircraft that can do that is the B-747-8F, bigger than the KC-10 and C-17, but smaller than the C-5. However, the B-747F nose door is smaller than that on the C-5, or the aft cargo doors on the C-5 or C-17. The side cargo door on the B-747F is about the same size as the one on the KC-10.

You are reading that wrong, any aircraft with a freight door could be used.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
We do not know the TO performance that Boeing could offer on a KC-777. All we can assume right now is it will be the same as the current B-777-200LR/LRF.

Well over 7000'

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
Additionally, even though NG has said they will not offer a tanker version of the A-330-200F, that is not really their call.

That was last round, this round it would make even more sense to offer the A330-200F, with the additional 5t MTOW, and the GEnx engines insteal of the GE CF6.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
B-737NG wing, on the P-8A/I. It wouldn't be hard to change those pods to WARPS.

Doubt that. Lot of plumbing to do, geometry wise the pod would then be in the wrong position for a receiver aircraft, and the wing pod full of fuel would weigh almost double the weight of the proposed P-8A weapons. Not to mention they are slower than the KC-767/KC-30.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:15 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 136):
That was last round, this round it would make even more sense to offer the A330-200F, with the additional 5t MTOW, and the GEnx engines insteal of the GE CF6.

Wouldn't that add risk to their proposal since GEnX hasn't turned under the wing of a 332F (never mind the fact that the 332F itself hasn't even flown yet)? That was one of the advantages in the last round that NG/EADS had since it allowed them to offer an existing airframe in lieu of the infamously labeled "Frankentanker" from Boeing. And we all remember the Air Force penalized Boeing (rightly or wrongly) for the yet to be developed tanker airframe that was based on the existing 767.

Perhaps NG/EADS should offer up the A345 if Boeing does offer up the 777. The A345 is similar in size to the A332, yet would offer more fuel offload than the KC-30, comparable to a 777 (they were both classified as "Large" tankers in that Rand study). And those four engines? Well, they may be the bane of a commercial airline operation, but they offer redundancy for a military outfit. And the additional cost of fuel burn for those quads and the higher OEW might be offset, at least slightly, based on the lower price of the A345 as compared to a 777. The only issue might be the mounting of the wing refueling pods. I know on the current KC-30 they are mounted on the wing points where engines #1 and #4 would be on an A340. Not sure if they could mount them further outboard if an A340 were to be considered as a tanker.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
trex8
Posts: 5517
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:59 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
Additionally, even though NG has said they will not offer a tanker version of the A-330-200F, that is not really their call. EADS will decide which airplane NG will offer. Of course, NG will have the rights to walk away, from any EADS offer, if it is not the original A-330MRTT.

seems doutbful to me that EADS will force NG to take a particular version when the prime doesn't think its the right one.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 136):
That was last round, this round it would make even more sense to offer the A330-200F, with the additional 5t MTOW, and the GEnx engines insteal of the GE CF6.

I thought NGs problem with the A332F was the increased OEW and that the higher TOW was not necessary
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10123
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:01 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
The USAF needs to write in more mission specific requirements (XX K lbs fuel offload at XXXX nm, with XX hours/minutes holding time, and/or carry XX K lbs cargo and or XXX pax XXXX nm unrefueled, and/or carry XXX litters aeromedical airlift, and or C3/C4 capability, and/or XXX self defense capability) and must fit in with exsisting and/or planned infastructure with no more than $XXX M required for modification of the infastructure.

Unfortunately, these numbers can also be set to exclude certain a/c, the capabilities of all 3 a/c are reasonably known or pretty good estimates can be made. Simpler way would be to just ask congress who they want to get the a/c from and be done with it, once an off the shelf option remains the process can never be fair, other that the 737 / 320, both OEM intentionally build their a/c at different sizes and capabilities to distinguish themselves.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:34 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 136):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
B-737NG wing, on the P-8A/I. It wouldn't be hard to change those pods to WARPS.

Doubt that. Lot of plumbing to do, geometry wise the pod would then be in the wrong position for a receiver aircraft, and the wing pod full of fuel would weigh almost double the weight of the proposed P-8A weapons.

There is no fuel stored in the WARPS, except the fuel in the hose. The WARPS used on the B-707 and KC-135 are built by Flight Refuelling Limited/ Cobham Mission Equipment at their Davenport, IA facility. It is the 34" (diameter) series, and weighs only 1000 lbs (453.6 kg). It is referred to as a "dry pod", meaning it does not store fuel, except in the hose. This pod is 202.5" long.

http://www.cobham.com/media/65618/ADV10602.pdf

In contrast, the HC/KC/MC-130E/F/H/J uses a wider WARP, the 48" series and it weighs 1080 lbs and is 250" long.

http://www.cobham.com/media/65615/ADV10601.pdf

There is not much additional internal wing plumbing to do as the WARP attaches to the main wing fuel manifold through a new install coupler.

The WARPS genaerate their own electrical and hydraulic needs. Only some controlling wiring needs to be installed and connected to switching inside the tanker.

In contrast, the AGM-84A/D/H Harpoons fired from fixed wing aircraft (It will also go onto the P-8A) weighs between1144 lbs (AGM-84A) and 1385 lbs (AGN-84H).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_missile#General_characteristics

You may be right the hard points on the P-8 may not be in the correct position for a WARP installation.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23482
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:01 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 134):
The problem is that there are now three very distinct aircraft vying for the prize. Unless the RFP writers can be imported from Mars they will be very aware of this, and also aware that whatever they write will almost by necessity be biased to one of the three planes, and they will also be aware of which one. How much fuel do they want to carry and what range do they want? Defining just these quantities will define which aircraft they want. Do they want to use existing facilities to hangar and service the planes? Congratulations, you have just narrowed your field down to one

Maybe I'm a babe in the woods, but I thought the USAF had some sort of analytical model that knows where all the bases they can use are, just plug in a the missions you project you will have to fulfil, and out pops the payload/range you need!

Of course the answer is totally dependent on what kinds of missions you plug in, but for god sakes, pick a set and go with it!

At least we don't have what we have now, which is where it seems they started out saying they wanted a 767 sized airplane and talked themselves into wanting an A330 sized airplane. Why not an A380 then? Clearly there is an optimal size out there, define that first, then open your eyes and see what fits that size.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 134):
It is not the ordinary military RFP, where they are looking for new designs, but an attempt to adapt an off-the-shelf airliner to the military mission. It is totally unrealistic to do it this way; ideally, the AF brass should analyze the specs of the airliners in question, determine which meets their requirements the best, and then negotiate with the manufacturer to get the modifications they need and the best price they can get. Unfortunately that's what was supposed to happen the first time, and the result was people going to jail because it was so tempting to pad their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. The next result was the competition, which has proved to be just as much of a farce.

Good points!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 134):
. It may be that the only way to resolve it without a bunch more people going to jail is the split order. I can see why the military is against this, and I think they are exactly right. But political realities may force it.

Ugh. We can't trust our decision process, so let's go with the least sensible outcome. On the plus side, some lucky USAF pilots will hit the job market with boatloads of both Airbus and Boeing time!  Smile

Quoting Par13del (Reply 139):
Simpler way would be to just ask congress who they want to get the a/c from and be done with it, once an off the shelf option remains the process can never be fair, other that the 737 / 320, both OEM intentionally build their a/c at different sizes and capabilities to distinguish themselves.

Another good point.

I don't know what's worse:
- Waiting for the US to get itself out from under the tanker mess
- Waiting for the EU to gee itself out from under the A400M mess
- Waiting for the US to get itself out from under the VH-71 mess
- Waiting for Boeing to get itself out from under the 787 mess
- Having a decent evening of TV viewing pre-empted by the death of Micheal Jackson

At least the beer is cold!
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
SEPilot
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:21 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 141):
Ugh. We can't trust our decision process, so let's go with the least sensible outcome.

Isn't that usually what happens when politicians are in charge?  banghead   banghead 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:01 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 139):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
The USAF needs to write in more mission specific requirements (XX K lbs fuel offload at XXXX nm, with XX hours/minutes holding time, and/or carry XX K lbs cargo and or XXX pax XXXX nm unrefueled, and/or carry XXX litters aeromedical airlift, and or C3/C4 capability, and/or XXX self defense capability) and must fit in with exsisting and/or planned infastructure with no more than $XXX M required for modification of the infastructure.

Unfortunately, these numbers can also be set to exclude certain a/c, the capabilities of all 3 a/c are reasonably known or pretty good estimates can be made.

So, who is the new tanker suppose to be for? The warfighter or the OEMs?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:24 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 137):
Wouldn't that add risk to their proposal since GEnX hasn't turned under the wing of a 332F (never mind the fact that the 332F itself hasn't even flown yet)?

Yes, however, that would be the 4th engine type for the airframe. So they have the history of that development. Plus they have the previous relationship between the 744 and the A330/CF6, then they could draw on the 748 and the GEnx.

The first A332F is not that far from being pull out of the assembly line, you can find photos of the forward fuselage including the cargo door preinstalled being delivered to TLS.

BTW, Boeing is talking about using the same engine now for the KC-767.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 138):
I thought NGs problem with the A332F was the increased OEW and that the higher TOW was not necessary

I thought it was really a cost and time isssue, the A332F was not the base airframe for their bid, nor did they plan the time to do a full P2F conversion to each airframe. Airbus say all A332s build since 2004 can be upraded to the higher MTOW as a paperwork exercise.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 140):

I think you will find they are the old pods, the new pods as found on the newer KC-130s and also on the KDC-10. The 900E, it is "Circa 1350lbs (612kg) dry", then you have to add the weight of the fuel in the hose, the aerodynamic changes, and all the drag from them as well.

http://www.cobham.com/media/33368/cob_m04_900e_datasheet_uk_fa.pdf

Still also have to add all the plumbing to get the fuel to them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 143):
So, who is the new tanker suppose to be for? The warfighter or the OEMs?

Neither, for the people they are supposed to help protect.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:01 pm

I believe the USAF has never operated a 'twin' as an air tanker. I wonder if they will have to change operations to allow for this? Does the USAF always send at least two tankers in case one has to abort the mission? For example, with a KC-10 or KC-135, they should still be able to complete a mission if an engine fails, but what about a twin? That would mean sending at least two aircraft just in case one has an engine failure. That extra cost needs to factored in.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:48 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 145):
I believe the USAF has never operated a 'twin' as an air tanker.

Simply because the only time they bought a new tanker in 50 years they wanted a bigger one, and no twin was available to meet the requirements.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:12 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 144):
I think you will find they are the old pods, the new pods as found on the newer KC-130s and also on the KDC-10. The 900E, it is "Circa 1350lbs (612kg) dry", then you have to add the weight of the fuel in the hose, the aerodynamic changes, and all the drag from them as well.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 144):
Still also have to add all the plumbing to get the fuel to them.

Still heavier than Harpoons.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 143):
So, who is the new tanker suppose to be for? The warfighter or the OEMs?

Neither, for the people they are supposed to help protect.

I was being fascist. Me bad for not making that clear.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 145):
I believe the USAF has never operated a 'twin' as an air tanker. I wonder if they will have to change operations to allow for this? Does the USAF always send at least two tankers in case one has to abort the mission? For example, with a KC-10 or KC-135, they should still be able to complete a mission if an engine fails, but what about a twin? That would mean sending at least two aircraft just in case one has an engine failure. That extra cost needs to factored in.

For most peacetime missions any engine loss is an abort of the mission. Certain high and very high priority peacetime missions (Coronets, Volent Booms, RC-135 mission support, air defense support {Bear hunting}, etc.) will fly two, or more tankers at assure the mission is completed. Engines are not the only failure that will kill a mission, electrical systems, hydraulic systems, landing gear, flight control problems, etc. will also abort a "normal peacetime or training refueling mission. For a twin engine tanker, the rules would be the same. For wartime missions, including SIOP missions, any way you can get the fuel to the receiver is okay, up to and including sacrificing the tanker, and bailing out.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:13 pm

New rumor from Seattle PI online (link below).


"Novel tanker idea: Pentagon to shake up the whole thing?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172389.asp
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:47 pm

Let me see.......retire perfectly good KC-10As and KC-135R/Ts from the USAF inventory just so we can assure that we do not get another protest filed with the GAO, buy buying 500 (equivelent KC-135Rs) new tankers now?

That will pass everyone's stupidity test, except those members of Congress who support this just so each can say "I brought new jobs to our district building parts for the new USAF tankers".

First, it was the USAF, not Boeing's GAO protest that screwed things up here. Had Boeing lost the GAO protest, we wouldn't be here today. We would be building the 4 KC-45A SDDs right now.

So let's not blame this on Boeing, for protecting their rights, or NG. Blame the USAF.

The KC-X program must remain intact so the KC-135Es can be replaced with either 179 KC-30As or KC-7A7s.

Then begin replacing the KC-10As with the KC-Y program beginning arouind 2020, and finally the KC-135R/Ts in the KC-Z program around 2035.

This will assure that tankers stay in production for a long time. The KC-X production will run to about 2024, the KC-Y will be in production until about 2038, and the KC-Z in production through about 2060, or so. By then it will be time to begin looking at replacing the KC-X.

I have a feeling that Obama will go with what the IAM Union wants, just like he did with the UAW workers in the auto industry.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/171095.asp

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 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