http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/06/defense-bill-oks-f136-funding/

Defense Bill OKs F136 Funding

House and Senate conferees rejected the Obama administration’s mild threats and fully funded the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter in the defense authorization bill.

Importantly, the authorizers did not take any money from the F-35 program to do it. In fact, the defense authorization bill fully funds the Joint Strike Fighter program, according to an advance version of the press release we obtained.

hip-hip-hooray!

best of both world, keeps alternate engine and doesn’t sacrifice the test program to do it

let’s just hope it stands

The pdf file is 158 pages & I do not have a internet link to it but here are some telling figures I saved from it.

you can upload it to http://www.mediafire.com for free with no account required and then paste the link here

It isn’t a lie. It is what the KC-X Source Selection Team said had to be done.

no, they said they had to alter the model because the KC-30 was outside it’s previous capabilities to handle CORRECTLY

so they fixed the model to handle the KC-30 CORRECTLY

Dream on. ACN/PCN is the biggest factor by far.

hardly

But often there are & THE primary reason for the 7,000′ runway requirement for the KC-X is to be able to better utilize them.

and the KC-30’s superior short-field capability triumphs once again . . .

if you need to work from smaller bases, the KC-30 can take off with more fuel in shorter distance

if you need to work from more distance, the KC-30 has the range to deal with it

either way, the KC-30 wins

why do you think tankers fly from Manas? because they’re too big to fly from Kandahar? No! Because the fuel infrastructure at Kandahar is inadequate to support all their needs. Because there is NO OTHER CHOICE

So?

so smaller tankers are less efficient when working at long distances because they burn all their fuel just getting on station and have nothing left to give

The smallest/lowest fuel capacity tanker capable of getting the job done is the most efficient.

well tell us Nostradamus, what sized tanker will be most efficient when fighting Oceania 20 years from now?

efficiency is nice, but when fighting a full-up war, NO ONE CARES

so the 767 is efficient for fighting policing actions when you have full control of the skies and there are no SAM threats and can be based close to the action

here’s a gold star you can show your mommy

your entire argument seems to be based around efficiency is small-time operations

my argument is based on capability, flexibility, worst-case scenarios

and no, being smaller is not necessarily an advantage in those situations as IFARA once again showed the ability to do the same mission with fewer aircraft, or if you prefer, more missions with the same number of aircraft

I also love how you continue to ignore that for those comparatively few instances where medium tankers like the KC-135 & KC-767 are not enough tanker is what the KC-10/KC-Y are for.

what if longer-distance becomes the norm? we’re already seeing that trend with stuff like Manas. Suddenly a long commute is the rule rather than the exception.

do we throw up our hands and say, ‘oops, 80% of our fleet is useless’ (or horribly inefficient)

1. not true (& even many that is can, it can only at reduced weight, thus negating its ‘extra’ capacity)

ok, slight hyperbole in action, but this isn’t:

the KC-30 can use more bases than the KC-767 because the horrible balanced-field ability of the 767

the 767AT might have had a shot, but now that it’s dead, so is any claim to airbase superiority

2. the KC-767 has more than enough loiter time

well i sure am glad you could clear that up for us :rolleyes:

You are right. The number of tankers needed to refuel all the MANY receivers in a effective & efficient manner is MUCH more important (because the fuel offload amounts are so comparatively low).

sounds like a call for IFARA!

How much fuel the tanker brought back shows how much ‘extra’ was carried, how much was offloaded (plus how much the tanker itself burned) shows how much was actually needed…

ok, fine, offloaded+burned

that’s a more relevant stat than offloaded by itself

No it does not. Not in real world US tanker operations the VAST majority of the time.

the very realistic IFARA score disagrees

No it is not. The cost evaluation of the last solicitation was SERIOUSLY flawed (in the KC-30’s favor).

hardly, there were minor quibbles, nothing that changed the numbers drastically

nevertheless, we’ll see

if you truly believe the KC-30 can’t come within 1%, then you should be relaxing because you have nothing to worry about and the 767 has already won

however, i think we all realize you DO have something to worry about 😀

The KC-767, with its ability to operate from MORE airfields

sorry bud, you might have been able to use that argument with the 767AT, but now that that’s gone, the KC-30’s excellent short field performance allows it to operate from more airfields

Based on the 2008 total chart & assuming say a 50% increase per sortie offload OF EVERY SORTIE & the KC-767 gets you about ~83% of the total while the KC-30 only gets you up to about ~93% (the KC-777 gets you up to just over 98%).

just another example of your disenguousness. if you knew diddly squat about tanker operations you would know measuring fuel offload is a STUPID way of measuring how much a tanker was used

if a tanker has a very long flight to its station, it will burn most of its fuel getting there and flying back

the total fuel offload numbers will look very small but that doesn’t mean a small tanker would have done the job

similarly a tanker that is waiting on station burns fuel even if it’s not refuelling anyone at the moment

a better number would be how much fuel was left at the end of a mission

Tanker Hardball: Sessions Calls For Disclosure of Boeing’s Price

Enter Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, the state where Northrop and EADS would conduct final assembly and mod work on the tankers if the team wins … again.

He’s proposing an amendment to the Fiscal 2010 defense spending bill that would withhold funding for KC-X unless the Pentagon shares Boeing’s pricing data from its losing 2008 bid with Northrop.

seems a bit . . . excessive

as Amy notes:

Interestingly, Northrop’s pricing data is actually probably more than “germane” to use DOD’s words. The team will likely bid a nearly identical Airbus A330-200-based tanker for the upcoming competition.

. . .

Even if it gets the old data on the so-called Boeing Frankentanker, would that level the playing field?

more coverage of the battle:
JSF Engine Word War Waxes Hotter

former SecNav on why we should keep the F136
The wrong way to build the F-35

OK, now I get what you are getting at. Sorry about my confusion.

So YOUR hypothetical fuel cost & MILCON adjustments are ‘adjustments’ from the last solicitation (to account for their altered evaluation methodology) while IFARA in a new adjustment to the new solicitation. Right?

basically

If your comparison is “a baseline of the last contest”, then your IFARA adjustment must be zero also (unless you are assuming the new IFARA will be FURTHER adjusted to accomodate/favor the KC-30). 🙂

the MPLCC wasn’t adjusted for ifara last time (like it was for fuel costs and milcon)

this is a completely new adjustment that has never been done before

previously ifara was a separate factor with no connection to price

now it is being used to directly modify the price