Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:Just like the C17 was too capable so many bought the A400. See, this can work both ways.INFINITI329 wrote:I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
https://justmytruth.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=584
After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.
keesje wrote:INFINITI329 wrote:I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
https://justmytruth.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=584
After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.
bikerthai wrote:
Same old, same old. After this latest election campaign, many of us have gone tired of old greavances and propaganda disguised as news and analysis.
bt
zeke wrote:You may call it “propaganda”, fact is the KC-46 is still years away from being able to do the role it was purchased, it still has not met the contractural requirements.
bikerthai wrote:
True, the tech issues are not disputable and are fair game. But the politics of the RFP and manipulate requirements are still conjectures and will not change anyone's mind.
zeke wrote:It would be a fair conclusion to state the KC-46 was not a platform that qualified, the selection of the KC-46 on lower cost was then was invalid under the RFP rules.
zeke wrote:It would be a fair conclusion to state the KC-46 was not a platform that qualified, the selection of the KC-46 on lower cost was then was invalid under the RFP rules.
bikerthai wrote:
Arguing that the KC-30 is operating fine with other Airforce is only one data point. It would be the similar to arguing the KC-767 is operating fine for the Italian Airforce, or the F-32 would have faired better than the F-35. Speculative.
bt
keesje wrote:USAF not pleased about a boom they don't operate? It seems most types were qualified on MRTT yrs ago. Unlike on the KC46.
FlapOperator wrote:Honestly, as much as I'm a fan of the -10, I think that more -46s is the better answer than re-creating an effective if nearly immediately orphaned fleet.
Yeah, we all wish that AMC and AFMC hadn't pooched the development of the -46, but here we are.
RJMAZ wrote:The KC-135 fuselage is actually skinnier and shorter than the A321NEO.
The KC-46 as it sits now is more combat capable than any A330MRTT
The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.
keesje wrote:Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.
keesje wrote:The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of
RJMAZ wrote:keesje wrote:The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of
As soon as I read that article I instantly thought that it had to be written by a European due to the exaggeration and misquotes. The Author is German.
The KC-46 can currently refuel 10 aircraft with some restrictions as stated by the article. Basically the vision system does not reach the USAF high standards. If the KC-46 was operated by the RAF or RAAF it would be deemed 100% combat capable to their respective requirements. The A330 boom system does not satisfy USAF requirement either. Just last year the South Korean A330 system had huge problems refueling the F-15. The poor aerodynamics of the A330 boom causes the F-15 to roll as it gets close. It has severe restrictions that of course the Koreans can live with.
The Boeing vision system might never be able to meet the USAF requirement. Who knows the only way to meet the requirement might be to have the boom operator in the tail. Cameras might never be able to give the depth perception required to meet the USAF requirement. But the USAF will no doubt eventually compromise and deem the KC-46 fully operational with a remote system that is excellent.
bikerthai wrote:keesje wrote:Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.
Just like turbo prop is better than tubojet because it provides better loiter time.
We all play that game
bt
keesje wrote:Turbo Props are preferred for lower speeds, lower attitudes,
keesje wrote:Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.
bikerthai wrote:We all play that game
keesje wrote:If KC-Y selection is pulled forward Boeing can increase production rates, improving efficiencies.
Stitch wrote:keesje wrote:If KC-Y selection is pulled forward Boeing can increase production rates, improving efficiencies.
With the final KC-X tranche buys now pushed back to at least 2024, realistically a KC-Y win will just extend the production line deeper past 2028 at the current Rate 3.
In 2018, when Boeing announced they would increase to Rate 3 at the start of 2020, they alerted 767 suppliers that the rate might be increased to Rate 3.5 and then Rate 4 by the end of 2020. This was tied to a possible large new-build order from Amazon, which never happened, and UPS' contract which gives them Right of First Refusal to any newly available 767 production slot.
Supposedly Boeing is again considering a short-term increase, which is probably tied to FedEx and UPS placing their final top-up orders prior to the 767-300F line closing in 2028 when the ICAO emissions rules come into effect.
bikerthai wrote:keesje wrote:Turbo Props are preferred for lower speeds, lower attitudes,keesje wrote:Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.bikerthai wrote:We all play that game
bt
keesje wrote:For both the freighter business > 2027 and KC-Y a GENX upgrade for the 767 makes sense. EIS 2018 would even have been better IMO.
Stitch wrote:P2F conversions not subject to the ICAO rulings (interesting loophole - wonder how that was lobbied in)
RJMAZ wrote:The KC-135 fuselage is actually skinnier and shorter than the A321NEO.
ssteve wrote:The idea is that they're not going out of their way to accelerate the decline in value or even decline in utility of extant airframes, so I don't see tolerating continued use of those frames as a 'loophole.' They're saying 'no more after 2028' -- conversions aren't "more."
keesje wrote:The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
par13del wrote:He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.keesje wrote:The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
johns624 wrote:par13del wrote:He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.keesje wrote:The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
keesje wrote:I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.
keesje wrote:The A330 and C46 are different requirements also. One is a dedicated tanker for an air force with a large transport fleet and the other is a combo tanker/freighter for smaller militaries that really can't have both. Before the A400, nobody saw a requirement for it. They got along fine with C130s and Transalls.johns624 wrote:par13del wrote:He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.
A400M vs C17? Different requirements. Fast jet/ helicopter tanker capability, tactical capabilities, flight envelope protection, no MBT requirement, auto low level flight, lower cost, they are not the same category.
johns624 wrote:keesje wrote:The A330 and C46 are different requirements also. One is a dedicated tanker for an air force with a large transport fleet and the other is a combo tanker/freighter for smaller militaries that really can't have both. Before the A400, nobody saw a requirement for it. They got along fine with C130s and Transalls.johns624 wrote:He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.
I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.
A400M vs C17? Different requirements. Fast jet/ helicopter tanker capability, tactical capabilities, flight envelope protection, no MBT requirement, auto low level flight, lower cost, they are not the same category.
texl1649 wrote:The USAF has 242 tankers in the fleet today, I guess i active units, yet around 450 total if you include Nat’l guard/reserve.
bikerthai wrote:Rehash after rehash.
Let's wait for the RFP to come out before we restart the debate again.
The argument of protecting the industrial base may sound true, but if the US government really want to protect Boeing, then it should pump money into getting a 787F which can be developed into a future KC-787. After all composite manufacturing will do more for Boeing and the development of future aircraft than old metal tech.
keesje wrote:INFINITI329 wrote:I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.
keesje wrote:After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.
keesje wrote:E.g. the Australians and RAF can be savvy/ focused with their expensive C17's, because their MRTT's can do a lot, for much lower cost. Boeing sees that as a threat to their C-17 bu$iness.
Stitch wrote:keesje wrote:E.g. the Australians and RAF can be savvy/ focused with their expensive C17's, because their MRTT's can do a lot, for much lower cost. Boeing sees that as a threat to their C-17 bu$iness.
Well Boeing doesn't have a C-17 business anymore, so... And even when KC-X was being fought over the C-17 program was winding down as the USAF had ordered all they wanted and had also ordered all they didn't want that had been forced on them by the US Congress.
keesje wrote:Revelation, I know GAO = congress & far from objective, they don't even pretend.
Stitch wrote:As such, the logical conclusion is that it was meant to be an open competition with the lowest bid the winner and Boeing offered the lower bid.
But hurt buttocks never heal, I guess. Perhaps try a softer pillow...
keesje wrote:Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry
I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.
Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp
Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.
LTEN11 wrote:keesje wrote:Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry
I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.
Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp
Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.
Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.
A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.
Stitch wrote:keesje wrote:Revelation, I know GAO = congress & far from objective, they don't even pretend.
And yet Congress could have easily done for KC-X what they with the 2001 KC-767 lease deal and just declared Boeing the only viable contractor and not accept bids from anyone else.
Neither Airbus nor Lockheed-Martin strike me as companies run by stupid people, so if two European a.netters could figure out they would never be allowed to actually win the bid, I would think they would also have known every dollar they spent on the RFP was wasted and Boeing also would have said "Hey! Why are we even going through this farce of having a competition? It's just wasting our money making us develop all these 'frankentankers' - just award us the contract like you already intend to."
As such, the logical conclusion is that it was meant to be an open competition with the lowest bid the winner and Boeing offered the lower bid.
But hurt buttocks never heal, I guess. Perhaps try a softer pillow...
keesje wrote:LTEN11 wrote:keesje wrote:Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry
I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.
Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp
Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.
Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.
A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.
Interesting! Luckily the KC-Y requirements have yet to be completed, so the cargo requirements can be reduced/ extracted. Lots of C-17s and commercial capacity around, so that cannot be a serious requirement. They can also order 50 777Fs, if there's a requirement afterall.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avgeek ... der/2/amp/
No, nothing for LM/Airbus to go after, hopefully the Biden government is decisive here and doesn't waste any time on a competition that really isn't. The KC-135 fleet is getting real old and the nation, the men on the frontline and Boeing need this aquisition asap.
Past performance has always been subjective & totally overrated anyway. In this ever changing world, DoD must look forward facing new challenges and opportunities serving the country when and where it really matters.
LTEN11 wrote:keesje wrote:LTEN11 wrote:
Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.
A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.
Interesting! Luckily the KC-Y requirements have yet to be completed, so the cargo requirements can be reduced/ extracted. Lots of C-17s and commercial capacity around, so that cannot be a serious requirement. They can also order 50 777Fs, if there's a requirement afterall.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avgeek ... der/2/amp/
No, nothing for LM/Airbus to go after, hopefully the Biden government is decisive here and doesn't waste any time on a competition that really isn't. The KC-135 fleet is getting real old and the nation, the men on the frontline and Boeing need this aquisition asap.
Past performance has always been subjective & totally overrated anyway. In this ever changing world, DoD must look forward facing new challenges and opportunities serving the country when and where it really matters.
That's why I mentioned that a KC-46 has the added benefit of being a transport aircraft. Nice that you show the KC-10 being used as a transport, but again it was an added benefit, the C-141's and C-5's along with the C-130's and civilian transport available were more than adequate then too.
Anyway, you keep swinging that Airbus was hard done by axe of yours, though it is very tedious.
keesje wrote:Boeing need this aquisition asap.
bikerthai wrote:keesje wrote:Boeing need this aquisition asap.
By the time the KC-Y contract is signed, Boeing and Airbus would have moved beyond the current crisis.
Neither company need this contract ASAP.
Both these companies need the airline industry to recover ASAP so new commercial airlines gets delivered. Boeing has started ramping up their factory work again and Airbus is probably doing the same.
At max production rate, the KC-Y will still be a small fraction of delivery vs. the commercial market.
bt
keesje wrote:Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now.