2. many of the components still stand. what the GAO struck down was fairly narrow. we are still left with:
a) the KC-30 is more capable individually (offload, range, pallets)
b) the KC-30 is more capable as a group (IFARA simulation)

BS. The GAO was very limited on what it could sustain a protest over & what it could not.

they certainly could sustain a protest if the capabilities were incorrectly calculated

they specifically DENIED a number of protests about IFARA

a) Sorry, bigger is not necessarily better.

in this case it was

And as the US has learned with the KC-10, 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

it’s called FLEXIBILITY

so we should remove capability to FORCE the USAF to make the ‘right decision’?

the USAF is a big boy, they can handle the responsibility themselves

b) Not unless you spend tens of billions of dollars upgrading (dare say completely rebuilding &/or relocating) quite a significant portion of the airfields USAF tankers do &/or have been identified as possible location to operate from.

that was ALREADY INCLUDED in the decision

granted the GAO didn’t approve of the way they estimated the cost (they wanted more actual numbers instead of an estimate), but to within an order of magnitude, all that cost was already accounted for

That is the US workshare of the KC-X program itself, not some theoretical post program benefit

there’s nothing theoretical about a plant turning out Airbus planes, it is very real

that has nothing to do with the KC-X program.

how can you say ‘has nothing to do with the KC-X program’?

it is a DIRECT RESULT of the KC-X program

It means that for the projected $35-40 billion of the KC-X development & procurement program the KC-767AT provides $29.75-34.0 billion in US workshare vs ‘just’ $20.3-23.2 billion for the KC-30. That is a difference of $9.45-10.8 billion.

and that is a very dishonest comparison because it completely ignores a substantial chunk of what the EADS/NG bid offers

And yes many are fully aware NG/EADS are FOS with their “58%” number since early in the process it was significantly lower but they kept increasing it

nothing insidious or surprising about it, they have stated that they are looking to replace euro suppliers with american suppliers where they can, and that shift you see is the fruit of that search

(along with the supposed number of US jobs – even to the point were they claimed the same number of US jobs as Boeing) in order to make a BS case that it was an “American tanker”.

the jobs numbers are always bogus, what matters is the money

but if NG inflated the jobs numbers, they learned from the best (Boeing) 😀

It is about providing the right amount of (not the most) capability at the best cost – and being the right size is key in providing the right amount of capability.

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 fleet

getting a less capable tanker simply to suit your preconceived notions of the ‘proper’ size is silly

And as the typical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker that you are you confuse capacity with capability. The real world isn’t so simple.

nope, that’s why they have the IFARA simulations to take into account all those ‘not so simple’ issues

Of course a KC-777 would have even greater capacity & higher cost than the KC-30. And just like the KC-30 that extra size comes at a cost (& I do not just mean $).

you are deliberately obfuscating the scale of the difference. The KC-30 would (possibly) cost a SMALL amount more. The KC-777 would cost a GINORMOUS amount more. There is a difference there even if you don’t acknowledge it

there is no valued added in exceeding requirements met or exceeded by KC-767AT

only in Boeing/pfcem fantasy land

in the real world, we have stuff like the KC-Y program. Please explain for the audience what capabilities KC-Y is/was targetting. (here’s a hint: they were MORE than the KC-767AT)

No, exceeding requirements by more than your competator exceeds them is of no falue benefit (the solicitaion was clear & unabiguous on that).

some areas had extra credit, some didn’t, the issue is a little more subtle than what you’re saying

Since proven to be utter nonsense.

1. they are historical reference to explain the reasoning behind the selection (as requested by Al.)

2. many of the components still stand. what the GAO struck down was fairly narrow. we are still left with:
a) the KC-30 is more capable individually (offload, range, pallets)
b) the KC-30 is more capable as a group (IFARA simulation)

No I am not ignoring the benefit of an Airbus plant in the US. But if you want to include that you must aslo include such benefits the Boeing offer…

and yet you keep harping on 85 vs 59 as if that was the definitive number when you know it’s not

as far as the benefits of Boeing’s offer, please share

I am not the one spinning. It is only the contribution to the US economy directly related to the KC-X program that is relevant.

bringing an Airbus plant to US would be a DIRECT result of the KC-30 winning

seems pretty relevant to me

that is a rather massive gain and to completely ignore it is either ignorant or dishonest, take your pick

Otherwise you end up in a never ending spiral of this leading to that all the way down the the “contribution to the US economy” of every single individual that can be tied to the program in any way.

no, i think you’re getting confused with how boeing calculates ‘jobs’ related to a program 😀

Who?

i already told you, not my problem that you fail at reading

duh, KC-30 requires time, the point is it requires LESS time

No it doesn’t.

The systems developement for the KC-45 (whether it be 767 or A330 or what ever) requires more time to develope than the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe.

lol, again confusing two separate issues
let us call the time to develop the airframe ‘x’
let us call the ‘systems development’ time ‘y’
x+y (boeing) > y (eads), capiche?

I am not the one squirming.
Keep on spinning. LOL
It isn’t a lie, it is a fact.
Keep on spinning.

reminds me of the story of the little girl who lost a race but kept running around screaming ‘i won i won i won’, as if by refusing to admit defeat she will somehow actually become a winner. In reality it just made her a sad pathetic loser

Employing workers here in the US to manufacture USAF tankers instead of workers in Europe.

Well it only has to overcome a $10 billion difference.

And to say an Airbus facility couldn’t contribute that here over its lifetime is silly. It could easily be substantially more.

Also, as the assembly is here, they will start to build up a local supplier base as it will make sense to have some stuff made here instead of shipped from Europe.

Which means parts will be manufactured in the US

Pretty soon we will have a new center of aerospace development.

And once the base is established, Boeing will be able to move more work out of the high-cost union states making them more competitive . . .

If Airbus wants to establishes a permanent presence in the US then good for them, at least for the time being we are still mostly a capitalist economy.

??? i guess i don’t understand what you’re trying to say about Airbus and capitalist economy

Anyways, Airbus can’t move anything over here without concessions from their unions. And their unions won’t make concessions unless such a move is directly tied to getting a large order, such as the tanker.

But the KC-X program is going to be producing tankers for a lot longer than a few years…

179/15 per year = 12 years

Wrong. There is nothing new about the 767-200LFR/KC-767AT airframe. All of the componets come from existing 767 varients flying today.

you clearly have no clue how aircraft development works

even if all the components are existing, that combination has never been tested together

that requires extensive analysis, testing and certification, and that’s before you even get to the tanker stuff like booms

even the almighty GAO agreed with the USAF’s assessment that the development was ‘high risk’

If there was nothing new, it wouldn’t be ‘high risk’

Boeing has already shown with the P-8 Poseidon that it is perfectly capable of marrying various airframe components from various variants of a platform to create a new varient specifically tailored to the customer’s requirements.

i never said they couldn’t do it, pay attention

i said it would take TIME

since you seem to have lost the point of what we were talking about, let me refresh your memory

The A330 will be supplied faster than the 767 and will give the airforce more planes by set delivery times. (very Important)

BS. Boeing can build KC-767s just as soon & as fast as EADS/Airbus can a KC-30s.

PS: using the P-8 as an example doesn’t help your cause

it was a simpler mod than the KC-767AT, was ordered in 2004 and still hasn’t been delivered (first flight just happened last month, 5 years after order)