Page 28 – Key Publishing

irtusk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 867 total)

← 1 2 3 … 27 28 29 … 56 57 58 →

Author

Posts
November 26, 2009 at 3:31 am in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2417288

irtusk
Participant

IF the USAF had been convinced that the ‘the increase in CAPACITIES is worthwhile and more than trumps any issues with ground footprint’ then the requirements WOULD have been changed

your statement is illogical

the requirements are the minimum, there is no reason for them to change

however if you have a choice between a plane that barely meets the requirements and one that exceeds them, well the choice is so obvious even the Air Force can make it 😉

Hell, in round three the USAF is even saying that greater CAPACITIES isn’t worth squat unless is comes at next to ZERO (adjusted – with TWO adjustment that favor smaller tankers & one that only favors larger tankers when the data is altered) cost

the IFARA adjustment is ALL about favoring greater capability

the USAF knows full well that the altered data NECESSARY for the KC-30 to even complete the evaluation missions demonstrates clearly that the KC-30 can’t get the job done without BILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure improvement.

here’s a newsflash

the KC-767 will also require billions in infrastructure improvements

The USAF ‘saw the light’ when it ran the KC-30 using real world data

indeed, that’s why they ended up selecting it

& REJECTED the KC-30 for not meeting its requirements shortly thereafter.

funny, i seem to recall the KC-30 WINNING

oh, you’re still hung up on ancient history back when the airforce was TOLD by congress to select the 767 and the KC-30 didn’t have a boom

November 25, 2009 at 11:15 pm in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2417400

irtusk
Participant

The KC-30 increase in size STILL does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload.

And that is where you are dead wrong.

They may have thought that initially, but NG/EADS was able to convince them that the increase in capabilities is worthwhile and more than trumps any issues with ground footprint.

Sorry, you’ve already lost this argument. The USAF now sees the light and CMARPS backs them up.

And don’t even start with CMARPS and/or IFARA being flawed, no one’s buying what you’re selling on that front.

November 25, 2009 at 6:22 am in reply to: F-35 News and Discussion #2433244

irtusk
Participant

Australian Government just approved the purchase of 14 F-35A’s, with a second order of 58 Aircraft to follow in 2012.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Faulknertpl.cfm?CurrentId=9753

November 25, 2009 at 5:11 am in reply to: An-124 back in production #2433282

irtusk
Participant

If the U.S. bought into the program it should be the An-225, and probably not the An-124. That would give the U.S. a capability it does not currently have. Otherwise there is overlap.

An-124 already has greater dimensions, capacity and range than the C-5

It would also have the capability of actually working

November 24, 2009 at 10:20 pm in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2433433

irtusk
Participant

No they were not. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Boeing’s vice president for tankers wrote that one objective in rewriting the specifications was to “prevent an AoA (Analysis of Alternatives) from being conducted.”

So no only do you have Boeing admitting that they rewrote the specs, but that they specifically rewrote them to exclude the competition (KC-30)

I don’t know how you can deny his plain writing

oh wait, yes i do :rolleyes:

November 24, 2009 at 9:31 pm in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2433476

irtusk
Participant

So the RFP has to be altered to allow these other products to compete…even if it means going away from the initial ‘ideal’ solution…..

except the ‘almost original’ requirements were drafted by BOEING specifically to match the 767 and EXCLUDE the KC-30 and had nothing to do with the needs of the warfighter

saying they have to be changed makes me break out the world’s smallest violin for Boeing

November 24, 2009 at 9:01 pm in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2433495

irtusk
Participant

The line doesn’t. The KC-X solicitation DOES.

1. i still don’t see that anywhere

2. even IF it does, you can’t guarantee those numbers represent the same scenario

for instance the RFP specifies a 2 hour reserve

do boeing’s numbers include a 2 hour reserve? you don’t know and have no way of knowing

November 24, 2009 at 5:50 pm in reply to: New KC-X material ONLY #2433580

irtusk
Participant

EADS tanker program achieves key milestone by simultaneously transferring fuel to two fighter aircraft

The A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (A330 MRTT), an Airbus Military program, has performed the first simultaneous fuel transfer with its all-digital hose-and-drogue system, fueling two fighter aircraft at the same time.

The hose-and-drogue fuel transfers occurred on November 18 during a flight test sortie that utilized both the A330 MRTT’s left and right under-wing pods. In total, the A330 MRTT conducted 11 simultaneous airborne refueling contacts with two NATO F/A-18 fighters and transferred more than 25,000 lbs of fuel.

November 24, 2009 at 9:06 am in reply to: New KC-X material ONLY #2433734

irtusk
Participant

KC-767 to benefit from 787 “surge” line

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/kc-767-to-benefit-from-787-surge-line/

787 will eat into existing 767 space, so they’re going to redo the 767 line to make it more advanced/automated/compact

this will hopefully reduce costs and increase quality

however a new line is a significant investment for a product so near EOL so it will remain to be seen whether this has any positive impact on the 767

November 24, 2009 at 6:47 am in reply to: Another retired tanker commander speaks #2433771

irtusk
Participant

Figure 3-1 shows a line representing the capability of the KC-135R for the indicated conditions.

where does it say that line represents the KC-135R?

November 23, 2009 at 10:35 pm in reply to: New KC-X material ONLY #2433854

irtusk
Participant

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/186063.asp

Pentagon may or may not finalize tanker rules this month

The Defense Department may or may not meet its original target of issuing its final tanker request for proposals by the end of November, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief said Monday.

“It’ll happen when we’re done doing a thorough job of considering all the questions and suggestions we’ve gotten, ” Ashton Carter told reporters, according to a Reuters account.

Carter also reiterated the Pentagon’s position that the tanker request will not consider a recent World Trade Organization preliminary ruling that European governments illegally subsidized Airbus aircraft programs, including the jet that’s the basis for a Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker. Pentagon officials have noted that the ruling is not final and could still be appealed, and that a European counter-claim against U.S. aid to Boeing is still pending.

November 23, 2009 at 10:26 pm in reply to: New KC-X material ONLY #2433858

irtusk
Participant

I just find it hard to work out why they were using ATP-56B (which never will be an error less document, as with all documents of its type) as the source anyway

their goal was to show the 1200gpm requirement was inconsistent

ATP-56B was the only document they found to back them up

so they used it

November 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm in reply to: New KC-X material ONLY #2433869

irtusk
Participant

I couldn’t see anyone wanting anything changed wrt the flowrate; it seemed to be more of a seeking of clarification due to an error on the part the authors of ATP-56B.

ATP-56B doesn’t matter if your only concern is meeting the specs. The specs are very clear.

SRD – https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=35b679422f290de448bbbb8a282fc527
3.1.1.23.9 (page 8 of the document or page 11 of the pdf)

The KC-X shall deliver fuel to all receptacle equipped receivers at a maximum rate of at least 1,200 gallons per minute (GPM), at delivery pressures no greater than 55 pounds force per square inch gauge (psig) measured within three (3) feet upstream of the boom nozzle ball joint. (MANDATORY)

no reference to ATP-56B at all

ATP-56B only matters if you are CHALLENGING the specs (ie trying to get them changed)

Just to be clear, if Boeing’s boom did 1200gpm now, they wouldn’t care one iota WHY the requirement was the way it was, they would just check it off and say ‘yep, we do that’

Again I’m not saying can’t meet the requirement, just that they don’t RIGHT NOW. Which means more money/time/risk developing a compliant solution, which they would like to avoid if possible

November 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2434709

irtusk
Participant

It flies in air, using the air to support it. It’s an aircraft. Helicopters are aircraft.

It isn’t an aeroplane (airplane to left-pondians).

fine, it’s an aircraft, not an airplane

the point remains, there was no requirement to refuel the V-22, only ‘all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft’

tilt-rotor refuelling was an optional objective

November 22, 2009 at 8:05 am in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2434903

irtusk
Participant

Yes the V-22 IS an aircraft.

nope

In fact it is the opposite. The KC-30 is unable to perform emergency breakaway procedures because it is unable to accelerate/climb/fly FAST enough.

it can, the GAO just wouldn’t accept the certifications from other countries that proved it

it’s a paperwork/legal issue, not a physical issue

the airforce deals in realities, they were satisfied it would actually work

the gao deals in legal fictions, and EADS/NG couldn’t LEGALLY prove it would work

BS. IT was ENCOURAGED & REQUESTED to do so!

nope

NG/EADS even admitted that it couldn’t do it & proposed a ‘fix’ that it claimed would enable it to do so.

they proposed a way to get what was already a physical reality legally recognized

CLAIMING to have a ‘fix’ for an identified shortcoming isn’t good enough.

why not? none of the proposed tankers actually exist, they’re all based of a bunch of claims
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 867 total)

← 1 2 3 … 27 28 29 … 56 57 58 →