irtuskWould the Antonov be acceptable to the US in political terms though?
I would love it, but i don’t see it happening
What about modified civlian Freighters with opening nose/tail doors?
that’s a no go, it needs ramp loading so you can drive heavy vehicles on and off
Or perhaps Lockheed could be convinced to Re-open a C-5 line, update the designs?
c-5 ain’t coming back
The C-17 is undoubtedly good at what it does, but for most basic loads its capabilities just aren’t required.
actually the problem is that the C-17 isn’t very good at what it’s being used for, trying to shoehorn it into a stategic role
irtuskStill, even if C-17s could make up for the capacity lost there would still be a shortfall in outsize airlift capacity, NATO is having to charter An-124s regularly as it is. Isn’t there a requirement for something akin to the An-124, militarised A-380?
well to go back to the old discussion, the C-17 SUCKS as a strategic transport with its limited payload (cube wise) and short legs (lots-o-tanker demand)
so there is EAGL that is supposed to be a true C-5 replacement, but i haven’t heard anything new on that in sometime
and we probably won’t until boeing gets good and satisfied with their c-17 production
irtuskThere are about 59 C-5As in active inventory. Only 50 may be retired. There are no plans to retire the C-5Bs. I agree there will be more C-17s but where do you come up with 130 for the Air Force?
just a real Q&D calc assuming 80 would be retired. if only 50 would be retired that number drops to 80 new C-17s
as far as the calculation, well (270,000lbs/170,000lbs)*50
like i said, very Q&D, but good for an order of magnitude estimate
irtuskF/A-18:
Weaknesses:
– High costs
i believe it’s lower than the EF and Rafale
Rafale:
Strength:
– Advanced design with a lot of growth potential
unless ‘growth potential’ is a code word for ‘immature’, i don’t see where it has more growth potential than the other twin competitors
– New technologies already under development
pretty sure all competitors can say that
irtuskTime and Money we do have for this urgent IAF needs , considering we waited for nearly a decade since IAF proposed GOI for 126 Mirages for urgent needs.
In the long run like for the next 2 decades or so Mig-35 will bring in great rationalisation and we can get maximum DRDO made sensors and system without restrictions and at lower cost
well if you want to argue that the IAF need is NOT urgent, then fine
but don’t say that if their need to RAPIDLY fill squadron strength IS urgent, the MiG-35 is the way to go
because obviously it’s not
irtuskIf indeed the MMRCA is an “urgent” and “necessary” need as deemed by the mighty IAF and spending billions of $$$ in phoren aircraft is the only way out to take care of “rapidly” depleting squadron strength then Mig-35 represents a cost effective approach for MMRCA
say what?
the MiG-35 is one of the two LEAST-DEVELOPED planes, right there with the Gripen-NG
both are only flying as concepts/prototypes with much development work (read TIME AND MONEY) ahead
irtuskYOu are confusing who is tasked with actually doing the work with you is directing & overseeing the work…
so you admit the USAF did all the work?
it was a USAF group selected by the USAF made up of USAF personnel (with some select representatives of the other branches)
the only time it went outside that was for FINAL APPROVAL, where they signed off on the USAF’s decision
irtuskNot the Air Force, the KC-X Source Selction Team. The Air Force was not in control of the proccess.
i thought i had grown tired of your lies, but then you trot out yet another stupendously stupid claim
true the team made the decision, but who created the team? who made up the team? who had authority over the team?
that’s right, the USAF
you act like they were victims with zero input over the process. in reality they had FULL CONTROL.
about the original team:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123052308
The Air Force source selection evaluation team
. . .
“I have an Air Force-wide, hand-picked team of more than 150 experts reviewing every aspect of these proposals,” said Terry Kasten, director of the 653rd Aeronautical Systems Squadron at Wright-Patterson AFB.
. . .
“I also have a direct line to senior Air Force legal and contracting advisors to answer questions
however, considering the issues they had last time, Gates is considering STRIPPING authority from the USAF for the NEXT RFP
however even if authority is stripped from the USAF they will definitely have a say
According to senior Air Force officials, who acknowledge that the Pentagon has yet to declare whether USAF will be the source selection authority for the next round in the KC-X tanker program, the service has changed its team
which service? the USAF
whose team? its team . . . the USAF’s team
it had “moved contracting responsibilities and oversight to a higher level in the Air Force.”
so you’re saying that the responsibility was at a lower level IN THE AIR FORCE last time?
irtuskSuddenly, an old movie from the 80s popped into my head concerning UAVs. Here’s the URL below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7NpQQ4eqk
I remember very little of the movie except a pilotless futuristic aircraft and others. Just how far they go way back?! A little history, perhaps?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles
irtuskBritain Signals It May Not Pay EADS for Cost Overruns on A400M
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a2fHLcc6602M
“This situation is very difficult and we want to be cooperative” with EADS, junior defense minister Quentin Davies, who has responsibility for equipment procurement, said in an interview in London. “But that absolutely cannot be at the expense of our armed forces and the British taxpayer.”
. . .
“The U.K. is signaling that it is not willing to make a cash contribution to the overrun,” said Nick Cunningham, an analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd. “It also sounds like the U.K. won’t compromise on the specifications
. . .
“My mind is open,” Davies said. “I would like to find a way of this project being saved but it can’t be at the expense of the taxpayer and the armed forces and we have certain requirements that must be met. Our position is absolutely clear. Our constraints are absolute.”
irtusksome talk, not of a split buy, but a double buy (combining KC-X and -Y and maybe -Z)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172389.asp
which sort of ties in with what murtha is saying
“If you look at the statistics we have put together, you will save money if you buy 2-3 tankers a month. If you buy only one, you prolong the agony and will have to [rebuild] the old ones [while you’re waiting for replacements]. My goal is to do three.”
(basically accelerating the tanker program so you can retire older tankers earlier and ‘save’ on overhaul costs of the older tankers)
irtuskNo it doesn’t. Nowhere in the solicitation will you find any mention of it
the mental gyrations you go through truly are astounding
Poor Airbus/EADS. Seems they need some kind of government assistance in order to obtain enough capital to do anything. 🙁
hardly, airbus is perfectly capable of keeping all assembly in europe
they aren’t the ones that need it, we are the ones that need it, it is a gift/bribe to us, not the other way around
If Boeing gets KC-X we get to keep the 767 line running
which is already fully accounted for in your 85%
(& if EADS is/was really serious about an assembly plant in the US we would still get that too).
they’re only serious about it as an attempt to win KC-X
otherwise they’re perfectly willing to keep everything at home
[irtusk]
that is a very direct result of KC-X
Result of, not a part of.
[/quote]
fine, call it whatever you want if it helps you deal with it
but whatever you call it, you still have to account for it
The benfit is an entire manufacturing & assembly line, not just a final assembly plant.
and that benefit is completely finished once KC-X ends and the line shuts down
the airbus plant is a gift that keeps on giving
Boeing doesn’t have to build any new factory. The factory already exists. The KC-X would keep it working.
your narrow-minded view would be funny if it wasn’t so sad
I didn’t say additional 767s & you know it.
well, what else are they going to build on a 767 line?
once the 767 line finishes, the equipment will be scrapped and the workers will be dispersed throughout boeing
eventually they may use the buildings for some new project, but that new project is in no way dependent on the 767 line, they are completely separate. if anything, it might be hindered by lack of room because the old 767 line is hogging valuable space
[irtusk]
and that gapfiller is called the A330
LOL
[/quote]
the 767 used to sell quite well. it doesn’t any more. where did the customers go? they went somewhere . . .
Now how exactly does the A330 (larger, heavier & greater passenger capacity but lesser range than 787-8) fill the 737 to 787 gap?
because it’s available now and the 787 isn’t?
Seems to me the gap is more in the 150-250 two class passengers & 4,000-6,000 nm range…
are you trying to argue there will be more 767 orders in the future? that’s funny, you just said “I didn’t say additional 767s & you know it.”[/quote]
As a bit of an off-topic note, Boeing has already recieved orders for more 787s than Airbus has A330. 🙂
not that this is in ANY way related to the topic, but that’s incorrect. maybe you were comparing A330 DELIVERIES to 787 ORDERS?
A330 orders
———–
A330-200: 557
A330-200F: 65
A330-300: 399
total: 1021
787 orders
———
787-3: 28
787-8: 627
787-9: 211
total: 866
What? A A330 backlog? How can they possibly build any KC-30 then?
a plant in the US?
And just how many sales do you think the A330 is going to really get once the 787 & A350 are in service? 😉
about as many as the 767 gets now
irtuskjust be honest that they have nothing to do with the KC-X program
it has EVERYTHING to do with the KC-X program
if EADS gets KC-X we get an airbus plant
if they don’t get KC-X we don’t get an airbus plant
that is a very direct result of KC-X
if Boeing wanted to offer a similar benefit, they could say “If we win KC-X we will build a composite wing factory in the US and build half of the wings for all 787s at it” (instead of them all being built in Japan)
that would be a benefit/bribe to the US directly tied to the KC-X program and worthy of discussion
of course boeing would never do it
But you are forgetting the additional aircraft the Boeing manufacturing & assembly plant (more specifically the existing 767 production line) could lead to.
lol additional 767 sales?
they have had ZERO 767 sales this year
There is quite a large gap between the 737 & the 787 which could very well need to be filled some time in the next decade or so…
and that gapfiller is called the A330
the ONLY reason the 767 has made ANY sales in the last 3 years is that the A330 backlog is too large and people can’t afford to wait
once the A330 backlog dries up (either from the bad economy or increased production or competition from the 787), NO ONE will EVER buy another new 767. PERIOD.
irtuskno, it found no problem with the calculations showing the KC-30 as more capable
that means they approve of the IFARA numbers showing the KC-30 is more capable
the gao disagrees with you
Read the ruling again.
the KC-30 has greater offload at greater range? check
the KC-30 has greater payload capacity? check
the KC-30 has greater fleet effectiveness? check
1. again ifara proves you wrong
1. No it doesn’t. It proves me right.
IFARA Score
———–
KC-767AT: 1.79
A330-200 MRTT: 1.90
(higher score is better btw, was that what was confusing you?)
your ability to deny the plain facts never ceases to amaze me, it’s quite . . . impressive
Using real world data the KC-30 could not even complete some missions. The data had to be altered from reality so that it could.
and the gao says you’re wrong
excuse me if i defer to them on this matter
increased airlift capability is never a bad thing
Yes it is. It meant a bigger/heavier aircraft that can not operate from as many airfields nor can as many tankers operate from each airfield both of which lead to insufficient booms in the air to meet the peak demand.
again, ifara takes all this into account, and it showed you are wrong
And the greater the airlift capacity the greater the chance the tanker will be utilized for airlift & not be availaibe to perform its primary misison of aerial refueling.
back to treating the USAF like a baby and not trusting it to be able to make the proper decisions
i find your basic disrespect of the USAF disturbing
It is really quite simple, if greater fuel offload &/or airlift were really have the benefit you want people to believe then ther would be no “medium’ KC-X &/or KC-Z. Instead the entire fleet would be KC-Y and were would be comparing KC-747 vs KC-380.
regardless of any other issues, we can’t afford a fleet of KC-747s
as a side note, we don’t actually know that
your only source for that is the selection report, the same report that, as you may recall, also said the KC-30 met or exceeded all requirements.
Yes but The GAO was not convinced that the KC-X Source Selection Team could justify how it is it determined that the KC-30 did.
and the point is that they ONLY scrutinized the KC-30
if they had scrutinized the KC-767 they may have found similar mistakes
until the KC-767 has undergone the SAME SCRUTINY the KC-30 has, you cannot claim it meets all the requirements
we know they made mistakes on one plane, they very likely made mistakes on the other plane
the only one who continues to ignore the greater capability of the KC-30 is you
Wrong. The KC-30 does not offer greater capability, just excess/unneeded capacity.
if more capability was never needed, they would never have a KC-Y
I know the truth hurts & that the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid keeps telling you it isn’t true but it is. The USAF said so.
as i keep having to remind you, the original specifications were drawn up BY BOEING specifically to exclude the KC-30
It is no benefit to the KC-X program.
again it is about benefit to the US economy
And you nor anybody else has any idea if its net long-term benfit is equal to or greater than that of tha Boeing bid.
true, but it has to be part of the discussion. just because you can’t put a neat number on it doesn’t mean you can ignore it
Yeah right. A new Final Assembly plant has benefit beyond the KC-X but keeping an already existing Manufacturing & Assembly Plant and the thousands of workers who work there doesn’t.
exactly
because once KC-X is done, the 767 line closes forever, there is no further benefit from it. all benefit is accounted for in the 85% workshare
OTOH the Airbus line remains pumping out all sorts of civilian planes that would otherwise have been assembled in europe
Those number represents how much of the projected $35-40 billion the KC-X developement & procurement program is stays in the US & how much goes overseas. That is what matters.
that is PART of what matters.
it is also buying an assembly line that will continue to have value long after KC-X is finished, something that can’t be said of the boeing bid.
BS.
feel free to expound your argument . . . if you can
767 line: already in existence, going to shut down after KC-X
KC-30 line: new, going to remain operational after KC-X
And despite you complete ignorance to the fact the Boeing bid will keep a Manufactuing & Assemply plant (& all the associated workers) in business rather than shut down. And when the last KC-X is bult that same plant & those same workers will be able to (because they still exist) go on to build other Boeing aircraft.
sometimes i think you truly don’t get and sometimes i think you’re just being deliberately obtuse
let me break it down for you:
number of planes boeing will build in US if they DON’T get KC-X: Y
number of planes boeing will build in US if they DO get KC-X: Y+179
increase in planes built in US if boeing wins: (Y+179)-Y = 179
in other words, selecting boeing doesn’t gain you anything beyond the 179 in the contract
number of planes airbus will build in US if they DON’T get KC-X: 0
number of planes airbus will build in US if they DO get KC-X: Z+179
increase in planes built in US if airbus wins: (Z+179)-0 = Z+179
in other words, selecting airbus gains you far more than just the 179 in the contract.
Boeing has no ‘Z’ factor, they are going to build the same number of planes in the US regardless of whether they win or not
lololol, i’ve asked you now THREE TIMES to enumerate these phantom ‘non-program benefits’ from boeing but you have yet to identify a single one
The same as the NG/EADS bid except for that they are for a Manufacturing & Assembly Plant rather than just a Final Assembly Plant.
and keeping it that obsolete line open a few more years is already fully accounted for by your 85%
the production of the Airbus line after KC-X finishes is IN ADDITION to their 59%
IFARA proves you wrong, suck it up and get over it
No it doesn’t becasue it was not based on reality but some alternate reality that had to be created within the computer model in order for the KC-30 to even complete some mission scenarios.
and the GAO rejected those arguments as FALSE, suck it up and get over it
If bigger was in fact better as you want people to believe then the higher cost of larger tankers would be offset by their greater capability & thus fewer tankers needed.
it does to an extent, but not enough to offset the dramatically higher price
the KC-30 offers greater capability at basically the same price
that is what makes it so attractive
But the reality is that the USAF needs a number of tankers in order to meet the demand for the number of booms in the air
exactly, and since the KC-30s are both affordable and more capable, they want to go with that
irtuskthey certainly could sustain a protest if the capabilities were incorrectly calculated
It did.
no, it found no problem with the calculations showing the KC-30 as more capable
they specifically DENIED a number of protests about IFARA
So?
that means they approve of the IFARA numbers showing the KC-30 is more capable
in this case it was
No it wasn’t, isn’t & never will be.
the gao disagrees with you
it’s called FLEXIBILITY
No it isn’t. With the KC-30 you actually lose flexibility due to the limitations its large/heavy airframe emposes on operational realities.
1. again ifara proves you wrong
2. you keep shifting the argument. in case you don’t remember, you started off with
a tanker with a lot of airlift capacity increases the likleyhood that it will be used for airlift & a tanker tasked with airlift is unavailable for its primary purpose of aerial refuleing
increased airlift capability is never a bad thing
The KC-767AT met or exceeded all key requirements (i.e. it met or exceeded the desired flexibility).
as a side note, we don’t actually know that
your only source for that is the selection report, the same report that, as you may recall, also said the KC-30 met or exceeded all requirements.
Chosing a tanker that fits the requirements vs one that does not is not removing capbility. Again, you are confusing capacity with capability.
the only one who continues to ignore the greater capability of the KC-30 is you
the USAF has been forced to alter its requirements/criteria to accomodat the C-30 which it had previously rejected for not fitting its requirements/criteria.
oh geez, not this garbage again :rolleyes:
Read the ruleing again…
i’m not the one who needs to refresh their memory . . .
The ‘projected’ benefit is theoretical.
false, the benefit is very real
Nobody knows how much benefit it would provide.
true, but that is a separate issue
Just because we don’t know how long EADS will run the factory or exactly how many people they will continue to employ does not mean that it is not a very real and tangible benefit
And the Boeing manufacturing & assembly line is very real as well but of course you want to ignore that…
not at all, but it is already fully accounted for in your 85% domestic content calculation
once production of KC-X ends, there is no further benefit from the program if you go with boeing
on the other hand, the NG/EADS bid offers a substantial future benefit
no we don’t know exactly what it will be, but the point is that your 85/59 number is inadequate to describe the full impact of the selection
Because it doesn’t. The KC-X program is not buying any civilian A330 airliners &/or frieghters, it is buying tankers for the USAF.
it is also buying an assembly line that will continue to have value long after KC-X is finished, something that can’t be said of the boeing bid.
and that is a very dishonest comparison because it completely ignores a substantial chunk of what the EADS/NG bid offers
BS. It is a comparision of exacty (at least using estimated numbers) what the KC-X program is from an purely economic standpoint.
BS. A substantial part of EADS offer/bribe is to build an assembly line here that will continue to build Airbus planes after KC-X is over.
from a purely economic standpoint, that is a significant value to the US
And as you continue to do, you ignor that the Boeing bid offers more non-program related benefits as well.
lololol, i’ve asked you now THREE TIMES to enumerate these phantom ‘non-program benefits’ from boeing but you have yet to identify a single one
you can keep spinning it however you want, but the fact remains the KC-30 is
a) more capable individually
b) more capable as a fleetgetting a less capable tanker simply to suit your preconceived notions of the ‘proper’ size is silly
No you keep ignoring the realities of US tanker operations. The KC-767AT is not a less capable tanker.
what you keep ignoring is reality
IFARA proves you wrong, suck it up and get over it
nope, that’s why they have the IFARA simulations to take into account all those ‘not so simple’ issues
Which had to have model data altered significantly from reality just so that the KC-30 could complete some missions…
well of course that’s boeing’s spin on the situation
the FACT is that the gao REJECTED such arguments, reaffirming that the KC-30 is more capable
perhaps boeing’s arguments weren’t as good as you believe?
A ‘large’ KC-Y/KC-10 tanker has its purposes
why thank you for admitting that your previous statement
there is no valued added in exceeding requirements met or exceeded by KC-767AT
is wrong
a fleet of ‘large’ KC-Y/KC-10 tankers is a significant loss in real world tanker operations. That is why the plan is to recapitalize the tanker fleet with more ‘medium’ KC-X/KC-Z tankers than ‘large’ KC-Y tankers.
nice spin, the real reason is that large tankers are expensive and they can’t afford a fleet full of KC-777s. However if they can get more capability for a similar price, they will jump all over it (and they did).
Sign In
