No I have not. What I HAVE been shown ignors THE most important point.

But 2 & 3 being true makes the selection matrix the Airbus product was placed as superior BOGUS & without merit.

The KC-767AT meet MORE requirements than the KC-30, was superior in MORE requirements AND not just MORE requirements but HIGHER VALUED requirements. But the KC-X Source Selection Team that & ‘selected’ the KC-30 on alternate critera (criteria directly contradictory to the criteria identified in the solicitation).

No, I have made my point that I am only interrested in the USAF getting the RIGHT tanker. The tanker it has asked for TWICE (three times if you include this 3rd round draft RFP for which the core requirements are essentially the same as round two but with a different means of evaluation for selecting the winner).

I have ALSO made it clear how disappointing it is that Airbus/EADS refuses to listen to what the USAF/DOD has been asking for & actually offer a competative platform enstead of continuing take advantage of the mess in order to ‘sell’ the USAF/DOD what Airbus/EADS wants to ‘sell’ them, ESPECIALLY given the fact that the USAF/DOD has already rejected it.

I have ALSO made the point that I believe (based on platforms known at this time) that Airbus actually will have what I believe to the best platform [A350-900R] for the KC-Y ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker. But who knows what will be available in 15 years…

Yes there is a new selection process & HOPEFULLY this time the proposals will be assessed on the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. AND hopefully this time those who are in charge of the selection will listen to AMC tanker commanders (like John Handy & Stu Pugh) instead of bowing to political pressure.

Except for the minor fact that the Airbus was superior in all but two of the matrix where it drew and it wasn’t the Franken tanker that Boeing offered which clearly didn’t meet what was required!

As I said you are only interested in Boeing winning, you are a BOEING Kool Aid drinker (to use your tired term). For you Black is white and White is Black…I have no time for you your arguments are circular!

1. No it is not.

2. ‘select’ because the ‘selection’ was NOT made in accordance with the rules & criteria of the solicitation

3. The GAO found that the KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. That DOES mean the ‘selection’ WAS wrong.

1. Yes they did you have been repeatedly shown this with links to USAF officials who say they did.

2. True

3. True

But in respect of point two and three accross the rest of the selection matrix the Airbus product was placed as superior.

You have made your point you are only interested in Boeing winning…we understand! You are by definition a Boeing Kool Aid drinker.

There is a new selection process and an aircraft will be chosen be happy with that and stop dragging us all back to this circular argument!

China has apparently developed a version of the Z-8 as an AEW platform.
perhaps for use on the PLAN’s new aircraft carrer, the ex-varyag :confused:

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=4907

Amazing! The Super Frelon is in her twilight years with the French…

Could a design like India’s forthcoming Project 71 Carriers. Be purchased at a reasonable price and constructed in a country like South Korea????

Or why not India?

India is growing as a ship building nation, if you are buying a Project 71 variant you might as well get it from the Indian yard that has experience building them!

Remove the Ski jump and add two C13 catapault and arrester gear then you have a handy little carrier.

It doesn’t seem likely, and Indian defence negotiations can be very protracted, but there does seem to be merit to idea of disposing of an unaffordable “white elephant” to the Indians.

For the RN, a CV-F sale to India would be a win-win situation, as the export sale would not only solve the long term procurement budget issues, but would provide “political cover” for the financial and technical difficulties that are yet to come.

All millitary projects are “White elephant” until you actually NEED the capability! Have a look at a book about the Falklands war and you will find Hermes and Invincible were to be scrapped and sold on to Australia both considered white elephant in certain circles until things blew up in the South Atlantic!

Selling on PoW would be lose lose for the RN! Pushing up operating costs for QE and leaving a capability gap everytime she needs an overhaul…forget the tosh about the French loaning a carrier CDG is overworked as it is and when she is in overhaul guess what. NO CAPABILITY!

The UK needs the force projection capability given by both carriers and the protection they give to task forces especially when the UK has such a large Amphibious assault capability.

I hate to say it as I regard him as a bit of an idiot but Karlo Kopp did a rather good report recently in AFM looking at the limitations of UAV’s.

One major conclusion bandwith and jamming is a big issue for UAV!

Also look at the recent American and British purchase of Beechcraft Kingair with “special fit”;)

A very good thing if true, a decent alternative to the ‘Medium rotocraft programme’ after all I can’t see any real chance that a big batch of Merlins would be delivered to soon and blackhawks would add another type to the MOD fleet which wouldn’t really be ideal.

Further details/speculation here:

http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/2738.html

This bit:

Sounds pretty interesting as it opens up the opportunity to replace the RN Seakings with aircraft the RAF have which are in turn replaced by new Chinnoks.

I’m curious about the reports statement that the UK would have to fight with the Pentagon to get these Chinooks off the Boeing line before the US.

A check of the Augusta Westland website shows we could get them new build from Italy as the agreement allowing licence production allows for sales to the UK:

http://www.agustawestland.com/product/chinook-ich-47f

Didn’t it mention WS-10 will be use in future..

I was talking about the interim engine to be used until the WS-10 variant is available.

Considering the development history of the WS-10 the interim engine could be in use for a long time.