irtusktwo that should probably go in the other thread, but . . .
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/25/am-air-tankers/
Scott Hamilton: Strategically, they sure as heck don’t want Airbus to have a production facility foothold in the United States.
Boeing executives worry if its European rival wins this bid, eventually Airbus will end up building tankers, freighters, even passenger planes in Mobile, Ala.
The name of the senior Air Force official who will make the final decision is being kept a secret so politicians and corporations can’t apply any undue pressure or influence.
irtuskA Twist in the Boeing-Airbus Tanker Saga
New Pentagon specs devised in an ultra-transparent process still make it unlikely that a Boeing bid will win. Will a political deal be the next step?
analysts who pored through the documents quickly declared that the Pentagon’s new requirements favored one bidder: the consortium led by Airbus and Northrop Grumman
they must have access to more info than I, because it is not at all clear to me that KC-30 will come out on top, but there you go
“The Air Force worked real hard to create a fair competition, but the political genie is out of the bottle,” notes Loren Thompson, a veteran defense analyst for the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank. “If they don’t come up with something that satisfies all parties, they may never get a single tanker.”
. . .
many analysts praised the Pentagon for being meticulous this time in how it drafted the requirements for the KC-X tanker
. . .
While the new RFP included far more detail, analysts say it effectively leads to the same conclusion: The wish list set out by the Air Force plays to the strengths of the Airbus-Northrop consortium
. . .
it also now wants the refueling aircraft to be able to navigate the short, 6,000-foot runways found on bases in places like India and the Philippines. That’s 1,000 feet less than the original requirement and a condition Boeing’s other potential candidate, a tanker based on its larger 777 commercial jet, would have trouble meeting.
I didn’t see the 6000ft requirement in the new RFP, but from other comments it’s apparently part of the IFARA worksheet
however the actual runway REQUIREMENTS are the same as the previous RFP
What’s more, the Air Force is demanding delivery of the first “preproduction” versions of the tankers roughly 18 months after it picks the winner next July. And at the behest of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Pentagon is now stipulating that it will pay a negotiated “not-to-exceed” price for each tanker—a condition it hopes will spare it the cost overruns common with the old “cost-plus” contracts.
That timetable and pricing stricture don’t augur well for Boeing, which has conceded it would be hard-pressed to have the KC-777 in production by then—and would likely be hesitant to bid a fixed price before it knows what its true manufacturing costs will be. “Since the 777 tanker is still a paper airplane, I’m not sure Boeing is going to be willing to guarantee a delivery date or price,” says Scott Hamilton, an aerospace industry consultant in Issaquah, Wash. “That could represent an intolerable risk for the company.”
the 777 was never a viable option anyways once the adjusted price was required to be within 1% of the other bids
it would have to have one HELL of an IFARA score to pull that off
In the end, many analysts think the contract won’t be decided on these exacting requirements but on politics. While the initial award was made when the Republicans were still in power and would have brought jobs to GOP strongholds such as Alabama and South Carolina, the political winds have since shifted. With the Democrats in control, that bodes well for Boeing, since most of its factories and employment hubs are concentrated in blue states such as Illinois, Connecticut, and Washington.
. . .
“The Democrats, which are Boeing’s backers, are in the ascendance,” notes Richard Aboulafia, vice-president for analysis at Teal Group, a Fairfax (Va.) aerospace consulting firm. “No matter what happens, Boeing is going to get a piece of the action.”
irtuski was able to find a reference to Boeing’s Gen6 boom being ‘1000+ gpm’
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/BoeingAFABrief.pdf (page 8)
but that is from 2006 and I haven’t found any evidence that it has flown
as far as the IFARA scores from the last competition, I have found contradictory numbers
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/KC-767_100DayProtestBriefing.ppt
slide 4
Boeing IFARA 1.79
NG/EADS IFARA 1.90
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=136532
the IFARA score for the KC-30 is 1.62 or higher, and the KC-767AT is rated at 1.35
irtuskI must admit I’d be interested to see what a/c in the US inventory can receive fuel at such high rates of flow.
KC-X
i guess they want to speed up tanker-to-tanker refuellings
irtuskSo let me get this straight, after a fair and highly scruitinized contest (of course its only fair if Pfcem says its fair!) if the Airbus product is selected you will not support that decision?
i understand a lot of what you’re saying, but lets try to keep the flamewar in the other tanker threads and this one dedicated to ‘constructive’ comments about the draft rfp
irtuskNot what you said…You said the 767 (no reference to non-AT 767, just 767) could not meet all of the USAF’s requirements. The KC-767AT being a 767 & meeting all of the USAF’s original requirements (& then some) proves you wrong.
again the context made it obvious to everyone but you
767AT = 767AT, 767 != 767AT
it was just to ‘kick-start’ the effort (getting 100 new tankers & allowing the retirement of the KC-135Es six years earlier) while a full spec/capability KC-767 (like the KC-767AT) was developed for procurement in post-tanker lease batches.
well it’s been 6 years since the lease deal and they just announced that they will not offer the 767AT, so apparently not
the 767AT would never have existed if EADS had not raised the bar and FORCED Boeing to create it (on paper) to be competitive and meet the requirements.
now that the requirements have been lowered again, bye-bye AT
Already been done.
where?
/me looks around
nope, don’t see it
And you have already proven that doing so again is a waist of time & effort.
no, what you’ve proven is that even when i back up my claims with PROOF, you just wave your hands and pretend they aren’t real
No it did not. A full spec/capability KC-767 (like the KC-767AT) meeting all USAF requirements was to be developed for procurement in post-tanker lease batches.
lolol yeah right
where is your 767AT now?
AND the 100 leased tankers were to have been considered for purchase at the end of the lease & to be brought up to as near full spec/capability as possible.
the 767AT was a different model, no conversion would be possible
No, the KC-767AT IS a 767! Yes, a developed 767 but still a 767 none the less.
unfortunately a hypothetical model that no longer has any basis in reality
irtuskI have one question to ask of you Pfcem respectfully!
If after this procurement contest which will be the most observed and scrutinized in the history of the USAF the aircraft selected is the Northrop Grumman Airbus based KC-45 will you accept it as a fair selection and support the decision?
let’s not go there just yet, there’s still a long time for the rfp to be criticized/revised and interesting info to come out
irtuskirtuskThe KC-767AT IS a 767!
from the context it’s clear (to everyone but you)
so let me be explicit about it: the non-AT 767 (the one offered in the lease deal and earlier) could NOT meet the AF’s requirements until Boeing eliminated some
Someone who has read the AG report on the tanker lease & someone who does not ignore what occured prior to the tanker lease RFP.
feel free to quote from any relevant sources to discredit Galloway anytime you like
anytime now . . .
whenever you feel like it . . .
take all the time you need . . .
Boeing didn’t write the USAF requirements.
no, they just eliminated them
irtuskreading through the SRD, one thing i noticed
3.1.1.23.9 The KC-X shall deliver fuel to all receptacle equipped receivers at a maximum rate of at least 1,200 gallons per minute (GPM) . . . (MANDATORY)
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/KC767A.pdf
Advanced fly-by-wire aerial refueling boom capable of delivering
900 gallons per minute
With a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute, the ARBS
interesting requirement, wonder if Boeing will protest or if they think they can bump up capacity without too much work
the thing is, it’s not just the boom
the rest of the fuel system is sized around max capability, so all pumps and hoses may need to be upgraded too
edit: same for the receptacle
3.1.2.5 The KC-X shall receive fuel at a maximum rate of at least 1,200 GPM . . . (MANDATORY)
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/KC767A.pdf
Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle receives greater than 900 gallons per minute
how much greater? who knows . . . but probably not 1200 gallons greater
couldn’t find any info for the KC-30, but presumably they sized it to match their boom
but maybe not
irtuskAres prelim look at the draft-rfp
the rules of the game seem to be: bid low, aim for the lowest fuel burn and military-construction costs, maximise your IFARA score, and box clever in the tie-breaker
irtuskok, the draft RFP is out!
have fun boys and girls
use this link to download all the documents in a zip
irtuskBut that did not last wrong as Airbus/EADS knew it could not win with such requirements/criteria & threated not to compete. So in order to have another competition, the requirements/criteria were altered to accomodate the noncompetative KC-30.
That the KC-767AT met or exceed all the key requirements (& met many more non-key requirements than the KC-30 & was found superior in more/higher priority requirements), which were MORE stringent than the original USAF requirements
oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive . . .
so the requirements were watered down to accomodate the KC-30 yet were more stringent than the original requirements
well, which is it? lol
PROVES conclusively that the 767 could indeed meet all the USAF requirements.
what the AT was or was not capable of has no bearing on what the non-AT was capable of
Why? Who hasn’t read that piece of trash?
Galloway was the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers
pfcem is . . . what exactly?
sorry if i find him more credible than you
Wait I know. You think, like most evetything you post about the subject, that if you repeat the lies enough times, enough people will be fooled into believing they are the truth.
thanks for perfectly describing your own modus operandi
irtuskThe 767 were fine, that’s why they won the original contest (lease agreement).
read this
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html
irtuskNo, the 767 COULD meet them but with the events of 9/11/01 the tanker recapitalization plan was revised.
nice try
but no, the 767 could NOT meet them
why do you think Boeing created the high-cost/high-risk 767AT?
because they had NO CHOICE when the specs were finally reverted to what the AF originally wanted
if the 767 could have met the specs, they had ZERO reason to develop the AT
but the 767 had “minor” problems, like not being at least as capable as the KC-135R in fuel offload at distance
Sign In
