The max load you’ll ever carry is 800-900 lbs. in the bed

Which is a great heaping load of ********. These planes will be in service for 50+ years, who knows what needs will be like so far in the future?

Plus it doesn’t take much of a crystal ball to see how a pacific campaign would completely invalidate assumptions based on years of mideast operations with plentiful and close bases.

Oh yeah, and it costs less. Your boss (who signs your checks) says, “Make sure you get the least expensive one that’ll do our job”. Especially given that final constraint, which one do you choose?

Except it likely doesn’t

Every indication is that the purchase price of the 767 is MORE

but because it is smaller it comes out to 4% lower LIFECYCLE cost (theoretically speaking)

so spend more now for a less capable ‘truck’ in the hope of saving a measly 4% over the life of the ‘truck’

Well, if I am buying a truck with which I intend to haul heavy loads in the back and pull loaded trailers, and the 2012 model gives me the option of a nice, fuel-efficient, clean-burning high-tech engine that was first produced in 2010 or a slightly dirtier, slightly less-efficient 1998 engine that produces 40% more power, I sure know which one I am going to order… and it won’t be the new one!

que?

EADS Mum On Tanker Debrief

The tanker competition did not change much publicly this morning after EADS NA received its briefing from the Air Force on just why Boeing won the $35 billion program.

“The EADS North America team has met with the Air Force, received a debriefing and is evaluating the information presented to us. Our objective has always been that the U.S. warfighter receive the most capable tanker, following a fair and transparent competition. That remains our position today,” said company spokesman Guy Hicks.

Sorry, the KC-767 can carry more fuel than the exsisting KC-135. Yet, used most the same infrastructure.

Incorrect, the KC-767 carries substantial milcon costs also

The choice was easy…………bigger is not always better.;)

In reality the airforce disagrees, as witnessed by the last contest where they were more than happy to give all sorts of credit for more capability

however what they learned in the last contest is that there’s no way to ‘fairly’ give credit for extra capability. To an extent, any such credit is arbitrary (how do you define the worth of extra refueling capability vs lower cost?), so the loser can always protest against your method.

They realized the ONLY way they were going to get a contract through protest was to simply set a min spec and then go for the lowest price.

Better an ‘ok’ tanker than no tanker.

Whatever they may have preferred was IRRELEVANT if they ever wanted to get a new tanker. The structure of the contest was dictated by the reality of the current procurement environment.

Now they needed two bidders and they intimately knew the capability of both planes, so they had to set the min specs such that the least capable plane wasn’t eliminated. Thus the capabilities of the 767, NOT the wishes of the AF, drove the spec requirements.

Airbus managed to take out 10-15% by taking out a layer (Northrup Grummam). Boeing didn’t have that option

actually they did

previously Boeing commercial insisted on a profit for the base frame before it got passed to Boeing military for conversion

Albaugh got rid of that nonsense and now Boeing military is receiving the frame at cost

So you say it’s provably wrong. Care to provide the updated RFP, both bids, and a copy of all the waivers?

notice the V-22 related sections are all NON-MANDATORY

It’s not all about runway, but hangers and parking slots too.

There is this from the announcement.

Because the Air Force wanted a competition, industry sources said, EADS received a number of waivers for several “key performance parameters,” including the ability to take off from 7,000-foot runways, fitting into existing hangars, and refueling all types of Air Force aircraft — it reportedly cannot pass fuel to Air Force V-22s. As well, the sources said, the contractor will not be required to integrate government-furnished classified hardware.

If the length was not an issue, why the waiver?

I know the V-22 was not part of the requirement of the RFP, so no waiver would be needed, which makes the rest of the allegations somewhat suspect

It was specified that way because that is what CONGRESS wanted.

FTFY