irtuskONE MORE TIME SINCE YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT.
i think it’s clear to everyone (including you, even though you won’t admit it) that 1200gpm was always the goal
if you couldn’t meet it, they gave partial credit down to a 900gpm minimum
now there is no partial credit
irtuskWhen the Airbus A330-200 went down over the Atlantic it probably didn’t matter, either. If an engine malfunctions on takeoff – let alone from a manpads attack – you have the makings of quite the human catastrophe.
Twin engine aircraft don’t exactly thrill me…
Out of 2,500 McDonnell Douglas DC-9, 77 have ended in crashes.
Airbus A300 had 11 crashes.
Airbus A310 had 8 crashes.
The A320 had 10 crashes.
The A330 had 3 crashes.
Boeing 737 had 84 crashes.
Boeing 757 had 9 crashes.
Boeing 767 had 9 crashes.
Boeing 777 had 1 crash.
the 747 has had 48 hull-loss accidents, resulting in 2,850 fatalities
the 777 has had ZERO fatalities
The A340 has had 5 hull-loss accidents, the 777 has had 1 hull-loss accident (no fatalities on either type)
Basically what you need is some evidence that a twin engine plane is more likely to crash per mile than a quad engine plane
i’ll give you a hint: no such evidence exists
irtuskSeems pretty asinine that three equal-sized engines minimum isn’t required.
is fuel more precious than people?
why do we allow people to fly on these twin-engined deathtraps!
wait? what’s that? twins are perfectly safe? oh, nevermind
these twins safely transport millions and millions of people every year
irtusk3.2.10.1.1.7 = TRADE SPACE, not an actual requirement.
which is what i said
you got partial credit for less, but the goal/objective/whatever you want to call it was always 1200gpm
so there’s nothing new about 1200, it’s just that it’s mandatory this time instead of optional
Not 1200 gal/min. 🙂
so if i said 1176 would you agree that was the number 3.2.10.1.1.7 meant?
irtuskTanker Wars: Boeing Says Law On Its Side In Subsidies Dispute
An interesting asymmetry has emerged in how the Boeing and Northrop Grumman teams have reacted to the government’s release of a draft request-for-proposal in the Air Force tanker competition. The Northrop Grumman team, which is bidding a modified Airbus A330 commercial transport, keeps complaining about the government’s proposed acquisition strategy. Boeing, on the other hand, has said almost nothing about the strategy but complains constantly about Airbus commercial subsidies. The World Trade Organization recently ruled that some subsidies from European governments to Airbus were illegal, and its pending report on the subject contains a chapter about how the A330 was unfairly benefited by improper launch aid.
The Boeing attack on subsidies has put Northrop and Airbus parent company EADS in a bind, because attractive pricing was to be a cornerstone of their bidding strategy. But with Boeing raising the issue of unfair subsidies on a nearly daily basis, it will be hard to offer a good price for the Northrop plane — which is much bigger than the 767 Boeing is offering — without raising questions about how the companies can afford to bid so low. When you add this complication to the other risks associated with bidding on the fixed-price development contract for the tanker, it isn’t hard to see why Northrop Grumman president Wes Bush is beginning to doubt whether he should bid at all.
. . .
irtuskU.S. to Evaluate Tanker Replacement Without Northrop (Update1)
The U.S. Air Force will evaluate scenarios for an aerial tanker replacement program without Northrop Grumman Corp. participating as a bidder, the service’s top uniformed official in charge of acquisitions said.
. . .
“There will be some thought that goes into what happens if we have only one response to the request for proposals,” Lieutenant General Mark Shackelford said in an interview today in New York after an aerospace and defense conference sponsored by Credit Suisse.
“That could be, ‘Is there a reason to change strategy?’” Shackelford said. “It can also mean, if we only get one response, how do we maintain pressure” on the remaining contractor to make sure the cost is competitive, he said.
. . .
Northrop expects “that the Defense Department will modify its tanker procurement approach so that we can compete,” Randy Belote, a company spokesman, said today in an e-mailed statement.
irtuskUSAF RFP supports smaller airplane: Boeing
Bloomberg quotes the CEO of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems as saying the USAF Draft RFP for the KC-X competition favors the smaller 767.
Bloomberg writes:
Boeing Says Tanker Request Favors a 767-Based Plane (Update1)
2009-12-03 16:13:59.557 GMTBy Gopal Ratnam
Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) — Boeing Co. defense chief Dennis Muilenburg said the U.S. Air Force’s requirements for a new aerial refueling tanker favor a 767-based airplane.“It’s important for us to allow the customer to finalize the requirement, but if you look at the current request for proposals it would push us toward a 767-based plane,” Muilenburg said today at a conference sponsored by Credit Suisse Group AG in New York.
Northrop was quick to point out that this supports its assertions that the DRFP is tilted to Boeing’s airplane.
irtusk3.2.10.1.1.7 is TRADE SPACE, not an actual requirement.
1. just create a new post instead of completely rewriting your post 10 hours later, that just adds confusion to the situation
oh wait, that exactly what you want
2. so . . . you’re saying 3.2.10.1.1.7 is an objective? glad we finally agree that you were wrong
Is it an error?
yes and you know it, stop playing dumb
What question have I not answered?
how fast does a boom have to be to meet 3.2.10.1.1.7?
irtuskBoth raptors got shot down but a couple of gun hits were recorded from the flight lead.
maybe i’m not understanding the situation, but . . .
allowing planes within gun range of your boat = automatic fail
irtuskDoD Response to Northrop Grumman letter dated Dec. 1, 2009
The Department regrets that Northrop‐Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the
tanker competition and hopes they will return when the final RFP is issued.
The Air Force tanker is a modified commercial airliner, and Boeing and Airbus make hundreds of
such aircraft every year. Both companies can make a good tanker.
The Department wants competition but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete.
Both offerors have suggested changes to the RFP that would favor their offering.
But the Department cannot and will not change the warfighter requirements for the tanker to
give advantage to either competitor.
The Department has played this right down the middle and will continue to do so.
The Department has been reviewing comments and questions submitted on the basis of the draft
RFP, and we will issue the final RFP when this process is completed, probably in January.
irtuskBut as you can see from BOTH the THRESHOLD & OBJECTIVE requirements, NEITHER say 1200 gal/min.
the objective was to not be the limiting factor
how fast does a boom have to be to meet that objective?
you can’t answer this very simple question because you would have to admit being wrong
According to THE NATO AR procedures document >1200 gal/min. 🙂
And since we know that is in error, AGAIN, what does an objective of not being the limiting factor ACTUALLY MEAN in terms of GPM?
You can however see a numberical value for required fuel offload in 3.2.1.1.1.1.
nice fail
that is about calculating fuel offload at range in certain conditions. one of those conditions happens to be 900GPM. NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about 900GPM being the objective, that is merely what is required for that one scenario
if anything, that treats 900GPM as an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, certainly not as an objective
irtusk3.2.10.1.1.9
The aircraft should be capable of aerial refueling all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures with no modification to existing receiver aerial refueling equipment and no degradation to the receiver aircraft refueling capability, including after-body effects for wide-body aircraft and fuel temperature, and in accordance with international standards (e.g., STANAG 3971 and STANAG 7191), and taking into account established technical guidance (e,g., MIL-A-87166, MIL-F-38363B, NATOPS) at its maximum inflight gross weight (OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
amazing you JUST HAPPENED to ignore the requirement immediately before that
oh wait, no it’s not :rolleyes:
3.2.10.1.1.7 The KC-X shall be capable of delivering fuel to all receptacle equipped receivers at rates and standard refueling pressure such that the KC-X is not the limiting factor.
now if you were to hazard a guess, how would you translate that objective to GPM?
irtuskeditorial by Press-Register
irtuskAnalysts believe Northrop is bluffing over tanker deal
Defense Secretary Robert Gates showed no inclination to negotiate on Wednesday.
“We believed that the (Request for Proposals) is even-handed,” Gates said during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
. . .
“I think Northrop Grumman is absolutely justified to take itself out of the competition at this point,” Wicker said to Gates. “I hope that can be rectified.”
. . .
“Northrop’s decision to abandon the tanker bid versus Boeing is merely a posturing move in our view,” Credit Suisse analyst Robert Spingarn said in a note to investors.
But defense analyst Loren Thompson said Northrop President Wes Bush, who signed Tuesday’s letter and is set to succeed Ron Sugar as chief executive officer on Jan. 1, is not making an empty threat.
“There is good reason to believe that Northrop actually will pull out if its concerns are not satisfied,” said Thompson, of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
. . .
But a sole-source deal might be a tough sell for the Air Force on Capitol Hill.
“I can’t imagine they can do it without competition,” said U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the influential chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the defense budget.
Murtha repeated his preference for splitting the contract between the two manufacturers, and said he planned to discuss the tanker contest in a meeting today with Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter.
irtuskTanker Bid ‘Must Have Competition:’ Murtha
Northrop Grumman’s threat to withdraw from the KC-X tanker competition is a “blow to the program,” but the House’s top defense appropriator believes “there must be competition” in the ageless battle to buy a new airborne refueler.
Rep. Jack Murtha would not be drawn on whether Congress would step in to require competition, but he did not reject that option. He is meeting Wednesday with the head of Pentagon acquisition, Ash Carter. “I’d rather talk to Carter first,” Murtha said in the Capitol’s ornate appropriations committee room.
Sign In
