irtuskObviously this thread has gone to pieces, so I might as well pile on
You guys just forget one important fact here. The KC-135 does the job, the replacement is needed because the airframe is old. Wether the next plane can deliver do 1,5, twice, or 10 times more is not relevant.
Ah, yet another Boeing kool-aid drinker.
How can more capability for the same price not be a good thing?
All this nonsense about ‘well we never offload more than x amount anyways’ is amazingly shortsighted
In the past most conflicts have been where we have been blessed to have close, convenient air bases so maybe total capacity wasn’t that important
But it would be the height of FOOLISH ARROGANCE to assume that will always be the case in the future.
irtuskPentagon will consider changing fixed-price tanker rules
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/194323.asp?from=blog_last3
Pentagon officials Thursday put in writing a pledge to revisit fixed-price requirements for the aerial refueling tanker request.
Executives from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have complained that the draft request’s provisions for an 18-year, fixed-price contract put too much risk on the bidders because the planes aren’t fully developed and it’s pretty much impossible to predict costs 18 years out.
. . .
the Pentagon wrote: “The government will consider restructuring the production options to reduce contractor risk.”
. . .
The Air Force has said it will release a final tanker request for proposals as soon as Feb. 23
irtuskYou know full well that the USAF/DOD said so.
B & S
No, the KC-X Sourece Selection Team ‘selected’ the KC-30.
aka the Air Force
It is no secret. ALL THREE RFP have been clear on what the USAF wants (even if it had to alter it to appease NG/EADS in round 2).
RFP was written by Boeing purposely to exclude the KC-30
RFP2 favored KC-30
RFP3 was modified extensively to favor KC-767 after the AF realized that a KC-30 was never going to ‘fly’
You are the one playing stupid. IF the KC-30 was what was really wanted then the RFP would indicate a desire for such. It doesn’t so get over it already.
It did indicate just such a desire in version 2
that you can’t accept that fact isn’t my problem
How was the scoring changed to favor the 767?
removing most extra credit for extra capability so it comes down to a price shootout
No, the KC-X Source Selection Team Selected that KC-30.
which was the airforce, exactly
Yes the scoring is different. But how does it favor the 767? After all the KC-30 is SUPPOSEDLY (not) the less expensive tanker. đ
It is less expensive to buy, but it burns more fuel per hour.
Nevermind that the airforce refuses to consider that the KC-30 won’t need to be in the air as many hours to accomplish the same task . . .
Then a scoring which places more value on cost would favor the KC-30, not the KC-767. đ
not when it doesn’t correctly account for the extra capabilities of the KC-30 when trying to determine fuel efficiency
No, it proves me right because the KC-30 REQUIRED model data to be altered in order for it to complete the evaluation mission to even obtain a score.
the GAO DENIED just this claim, get over it
Deam on. the A330 wing is NOT more efficient than the 767-300F wing & . . . the A330 is NOT more maintenance friendly.
you must really love living in denial land
The A330 cocpit is NOT more advanced than the 767-400ER
but KC-X isn’t based on the 400ER now is it? Notice i specifically made the point that SINCE KC-767 ISN’T FRANKENTANKER (which would have had the 400ER cockpit) it will have a less advanced cockpit
No you can’t.
denying the obvious truth doesn’t win you any converts my friend
No I have not.
Let me refresh everyone else’s memory
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1459930&postcount=50
No, SOME of the KC-X Source Selection Team were USAF personnel. Most/all were selected by Gates/Young & company & the results clearly show that they did not represent the USAF’s interest.
more completely made up imaginary ‘facts’ from your friend pfcem
irtuskFunny (not) how you can separate Druyun from the USAF/DOD but can not separate Sears from Boeing…
A few other important points that you are missing…Druyun left the USAF/DOD (to work for Boeing) well before Boeing was awarded the contract. In fact the deal had been reworded & renegotiated from 100 lease tankers to 20 lease + 80 purchase tankers AFTER she left. Also that separate idependent review of the lease had found the price to be fair & reasonable. And last but not least that government workers going to work for contractors was nothing new.
funny how you make it sound like she didn’t do anything at all
people don’t go to jail for nothing
(at least people who can afford good lawyers)
irtuskThe A330 is MUCH closer in size & weight to the 777 than it is to the 767…
so it’s closer to the size of a 777 yet it’s cheaper than a 767, sounds like an amazing bargain to me
Utter nonsence. The A330 offers greater capacity (which ALL THREE RFP have NOT asked for) WITH a major impact on opertating issues.
ifara proves you wrong yet again
More nonsense. There is NOTHING more ‘new’ to the A330 design vs the 767.
more efficient wing for starters, more advanced cockpit since they’re no longer doing frankentanker, more modern maintenance friendly design to make support cheaper
Remember the BS argument that the KC-767AT was a ‘paper airplane’? You cant have it both ways.
sure you can
a new amalgamation of old parts is the worst of all worlds. it doesn’t exist and yet when (if) it does, it’s still made up of OLD parts
The KC-30 was NOT picked by the USAF.
you have been smacked around on this so often and so strongly that it’s sad you still cling to this
It was ‘selected’ by the KC-X Source Selection Team
which was made up of AF personnel selected by the AF to represent the AF’s interest
irtuskExcept that in order for the KC-30 to compete the REAL WORLD had to be ignored & an alternative one created within the model.
proof please
(sorry, boeing propaganda does not constitute proof)
The USAF had enough experience with the KC-135 & KC-10 to understand the size & weight of its the tankers effects REAL WORLD ops. Enough to understand that an tanker LARGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but 110,000 lbs LESS fuel capcity was a nonstarter as a KC-135 replacement.
and yet they selected it, funny that
By, just as I stated, not assessing the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.
so they secretly wanted the 767 to win, but purposely messed up the evaluation to favor the KC-30
tell me another one
And now the almost exact same key requirements from round 2 are claimed to favor the 767 in round 3…
don’t play stupid. it’s not the requirements, either side can meet the requirements (assuming Boeing can pull a 1200gpm boom out of its butt)
it’s how the scoring is weighted
So now you think the RFP has nothing to do with what the USAF wants?
the scoring was dramatically changed to favor the 767, so now i would say that it is what they ‘want’ this time
what changed from last time when they wanted the KC-30? they realized they would never be able to sell a KC-30 in congress . . .
round 1: The KC-330 (as it was known then) not having a boom was not one of the reasons sited for it being rejected.
it was, but if you REALLY want to dig into the sordid history of the first round, we can go there
round 2: You wish.
The AF seleced the KC-30, I don’t know how much clearer it can get.
round 3: The USAF knows the KC-30 ISN’T better. And again, the round 3 RFP has almost exactly the same key requirements as round 2….
the scoring is dramatically different, one might conclude they HAD to skew the scoring to ensure a 767 win because they know there’s no way it can really compete with the KC-30
irtuskSorry irtusk, but there are some things I just can not let slide.
then go start you own thread
irtuskEADS to ground military plane ‘if no deal by Monday’
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100211/business/spain_aerospace_defence_contract_company_eads_1
The European EADS aerospace group, which controls Airbus, will begin to wind down development of the A400M military transport plane if an agreement on budget overruns is not agreed with partner governments by Monday, a report said here Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENTThe newspaper Cinco Dias quoted trade union sources as saying that top Airbus executive Tom Enders had made this clear on Wednesday when he visited an Airbus site at Getafe near Madrid.
. . .
Gallois said in Munich, Germany, on Saturday that he expected clarification by “next week” on government financing of the extra costs.
French Defence Minister Herve Morin has said that the seven countries had given EADS until the end of February to conclude negotiations.
It sounds like a pretty serious threat until you realize ‘begin to wind down’ means exactly nothing
irtusklet’s try to keep this thread on NEW material, not rehashing old stuff
speaking of which . . .
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100210/BIZ/702109877
Three out of three analysts agree: The Boeing Co. likely will land the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.
âBoeing will get the first round,â said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner with G2 Solutions. Boeingâs â767 is going to be the winner of a competition.â
Merluzeau spoke Tuesday at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference in Lynnwood. Analysts Richard Aboulafia, with the Teal Group, and Scott Hamilton, with Issaquah-based Leeham Co., also agreed that Boeing is poised to win the roughly $35 billion tanker contest.
irtuskMurtha death bad news for Northrop tanker bid
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/murtha-death-bad-news-for-northrop-tanker-bid/
The death today of US Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA) will likely succeed him, and this is bad news for Northrop Grumman and its bid for the KC-X USAF aerial tanker.
Murtha supported a plan to split the buy between Northropâs KC-30, based on the Airbus A330-200, and Boeingâs KC-767 despite opposition from the Department of Defense for a dual procurement. Murtha believed a split buy was the only solution that would win Congressional funding to replace the 50-year old Boeing KC-135s.
Dicks not only has steadfastly supported the KC-767, he has equally steadfastly opposed a split buy. With Murthaâs voice now stilled, Dicks is in a stronger position to oppose a split buy.
irtuskHey, rather than just shooting the messenger, I’d be interested to see some engagement with the facts or allegations in the article quoted.
What facts?
That they ‘expect’ the unit price to be $200 million?
That they ‘expect’ the F-35C to be declared unsuitable?
sorry, facts not found
irtuskBoeing officials talk tanker with Air Force
A Boeing team met with Air Force officials Tuesday to discuss the aerial refueling tanker request for proposals.
The Boeing team, led by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Chief Operating Officer John Lockard, met with members of the Air Force’s tanker program office at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale wrote on the company’s tanker blog.
The meeting lasted several hours with the Air Force, and its purpose was to allow us to voice both observations and concerns. And as we have done through the submission of questions, our face-to-face engagement was focused on the process of evaluating the proposals. This effort to gather our feedback and potentially address our input through the established acquisition process is appreciated. We were also told our input would be shared with senior Air Force leadership as they move forward to releasing the final RFP in January 2010.
Meanwhile, National Defense magazine reported that Air Force Gen. Duncan McNabb, commander of U.S. Transportation Command, said the draft tanker requirements were fine as written, despite complaints from Northrop Grumman and, less so, Boeing.
Both companies have expressed concern that the fixed-price requirements could put too much risk on them. Northrop officials said last week that they wouldn’t bid on the contract as written because the criteria favor Boeing’s smaller tanker offering.
“I feel very good about the requirements,” McNabb said, according to National Defense’s report. “My take is everything we need in that new tanker is reflected” in the document.
irtuskTrade Expert Disputes Interpretation Of Tanker Subsidies Issue
Noted trade expert and aerospace analyst Joel Johnson thinks I’ve missed the boat — or the widebody — in my recent blog posting on how Airbus subsidies should play in the Air Force tanker competition. He sent us the following point-by-point response to my posting. Johnson has held a number of senior positions in the federal government and the private sector, and currently advises several companies including Northrop Grumman.
irtuskNorthrop Not Expected To Walk Away From KC-X
The decision by Northrop Grumman/EADS North America not to submit a bid for the U.S. Air Forceâs KC-135 replacement competition is largely seen as continued posturing by the team, rather than an end to its ambitions to win back the $35-billion deal to rebuild aerial refuelers.
. . .
Robert Spingarn of Credit Suisse says Northrop Grummanâs announcement is âmerely a posturing moveâ and is âpart of a negotiation process because [Northrop Grumman] has concluded it would have to bid the current RFP at a massive loss in order to win.â
Another financial analyst suggests the timing for the no-bid threat was plotted to ensure the companyâs options are kept open. If Northrop Grumman were to pull out after the final RFP is issued, it would have less leverage and room to maneuver to possibly re-enter the competition.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill could get involved if the team sticks with its plans not to bid. They could again embrace an option to buy both tankers at once, splitting the work with the lionâs share annually going to the best-performing team.
. . .
By default, Northrop Grummanâs decision to walk away from the deal would mean the Pentagon could justify a sole-source deal to Boeing, but the Senate Armed Services Committee, and especially ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have pushed for a competition. The Pentagon may be compelled to make some concessions if Congress rejects a sole-source contract.
. . .
Boeing objects to the use in the forthcoming competition of the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (Ifara), a tool that measures performance of aircraft in various operational scenarios. Ifara was the factor added in the 2007-08 competition after Northrop Grumman threatened not to bid. The Pentagonâs annual escalation rate of 2.5% projected for fuel cost, is too low, Muilenburg says. And, he takes issue with the method used to just military construction costs.
Like Northrop Grumman, Muilenburg is worried about the risk associated with a fixed-price contract, which would call for requirements discipline from the Air Force.
irtuskUSAF used criteria GAO rejected in new DRFP: KC-30 backers
The USAF used criteria in the current Draft RFP for the KC-X competition that had been rejected by the Government Accountability Officeâs review of the Boeing protest last year, an analysis by prepared by EADS North America and Northrop Grumman asserts.
This unfairly tilts the current DRFP toward the Boeing KC-767 and is the basis Northrop why said it will not submit a bid unless major changes are made with the Final RFP.
The analysis was distributed to selected Members of Congress within the last 12 days. We obtained a copy of the analysis over the weekend. The Air Force is expected to receive a copy December 8 during a previously scheduled meeting with Northrop.
. . .
Northrop/EADS provides a long list which we wonât replicate here, with the underlying point that the USAF adopted Boeing complaints that the GAO rejected, which favor Boeing and disadvantage Northrop. Among these:
1. The GAO rejected a Boeing complaint that the USAF valued the KC-30âs short-field performance yet the USAF now calls this a non-mandatory factor;
2. The GAO rejected a complaint that the USAF unfairly lengthened Boeingâs delivery schedule; the current DRFP removed this entirely;
3. The GAO rejected Boeingâs complaint that the USAF assigned Boeing an unacceptable high risk for its schedule but this risk assessment was removed from the new DRFP;
4. Boeing complained the USAFâs past-performance criteria was unreasonable, a complaint rejected by the GAO; but the Air Force âsignificantly diminishedâ past performance in the current DRFP;
5. Boeing complained the Air Force undervalued Boeingâs advantage in technical manuals, a complaint rejected by the GAO; Northrop says this is now a mandatory requirement and that Boeingâs design is specified.
now this is the part i found bizarre
The companies also claim the USAF no longer requires wing-mounted refueling pods,
say what?
something Boeing has had vexing difficulties with on the KC-767, now favoring instead the centerline hose-and-drogue system. Ironically, Boeing says it has fixed the wing pod issue and weâve heard instead has difficulties with the centerline systemâsomething Boeing declines comment on. Northrop notes that âsome airspeed requirements for the wing-mounted pods have been removed,â citing the specific sections of the DRFP. This was an issue, for the wing pods on the KC-767 designed for the Italians had flutter problems above a certain airspeed. We were told by several sources, not connected with Northrop/EADS, that Boeing had to reduce the airspeed on the Italian tanker to eliminate the flutter. (Boeing denies this.)
Sign In
