Whether you agree with the decision or not, it was not merely GAO saying “because I say so”. The USAF didn’t cover all of its bases.

See the 7 points the GAO mentions. A number of them are quite valid. Certain ones, like #2 and #4 make you sit back and wonder what the USAF was thinking. They knew this competition was going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:

1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.

2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”

3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004257.html

Say what you will about the respective planes and companies, the selection process wasn’t without its issues this time around.

Logan Hartke

But still ur aircraft increased weight by 3% unlike Sukhoi whose weight has decreasd?. u just cannot compare something made of titanium with some aircraft made of wood and plastic. If u ignore all other criteria like 40 year life.

It’s weight increased because of the uprated engine, the larger wing, and the additional mission equipment added to the plane, not more structure as you asserted was necessary. The point still stands. Also, the P-47 wasn’t constructed of wood or plastic…at all. It was, like the Sukhois, primarily aluminum. The principles still apply.

Nope P-47 is only valid when u look at things in only one dimension.

That was the only one you mentioned in your earlier statement. You’re trying to change the scenario to fit your assertion rather than consider the possible that your assertion isn’t always correct. A plane’s structural weight doesn’t have to increase as it adds fuel space.

Aircraft in West has clearly gain weight when the become Multirole. I will give u another example. MIG-35 is only 500KG heavier than MIG-29A but MIG-35 can carry more than twice the load of MIG-29A with more than 50% fuel capacity of MIG-29A and with much greater service life and heavier AESA radar and Two IRST. which alone add weight. and another example is new Tu-204SM. so this thing is not limited to only one aircraft.

Oh, fun, more East vs West. Maybe you need to look up the definition of “shadowboxing”.

Logan Hartke

60% of what capacity?
Very good example. now try to reduce the weight of modern car to second world war era car. things werer simple and obvious.. What do u think about airframe life with Supermanevorability of 3D TVC engine aircraft.

60% of what it had (570 gallons compared to 305 gallons originally).

As far as weights go, there’s certainly some truth there, but a lot of the same principles apply. Besides, while it’s a light-end, heavy-end comparison, fuel weight doesn’t change and a normal-loaded P-47 weighed less than 3,000 lbs less than a normal-loaded Gripen.

Things were simpler, but I would contend the “obvious” remark. Especially when you consider that they didn’t have the ability to simulate things the way we can today. You had to design then fly and hope you didn’t screw up too badly. Oftentimes, some problems sources were not discovered until after it was too late, if they ever were at all. You had to correct stability issues with actual airframe redesign as opposed to a software update, for example.

As far as airframe life, considering the more advanced metallurgy and composites, the software preventing the pilot from over-Ging as seriously, and the more advanced computer-aided stress design from the outset, modern airframes should (and do) have a greater airframe lift than an aircraft of a comparable role from 60 years ago. As far as 3D TVC airframes go, as I understand it, they should actually improve airframe lift, as they actually lessen the Gs required to accomplish a certain maneuver. They can increase the amount of negative Gs that an airframe is likely to bring on itself, but that isn’t as strenuous on an airframe.

Logan Hartke

WWII bombers achieved a number of unusual victories, although the bomber-on-bomber actions are always pretty neat (and fairly violent, typically). Common are the stories of bombers fending off swarms of attackers. Notable ones that come to mind are the lone B-17 in the Pacific the beat off something like 14 separate waves of Japanese fighter attacks, the Sunderland that fought off an attack by something like 11 Ju 88s, downing most of them, and the two PB4Ys that, through skillful tactics, fought off an attack by 14 Zeros, downing something like 8 or more of them, and taking only one round of damage between the two of them.

The B-17 vs Mavis is always memorable, especially thanks to Stan Stokes.

From what I’ve read, though, this happened more than once and at least once, the Mavis “won” (albeit it was so shot up that it sank upon returning and it never actually saw the B-17 go down).

About the neatest bomber story that I’ve read, though, comes of a B-24 on the Ploesti raid that got sick of seeing a flak train, moving at speed, shooting up all the bombers in the raid. The pilot brought the B-24 down to treetop level, ran it parallel to the tracks alongside the train, then slowed it down where the two (the flak train and the B-24) began engaging in a 18th-century broadside gun battle. The gunners on the B-24 were raking the train from one end to the other and the gunners on the train were doing their best to down the B-24, but in the end the B-24 prevailed. I do not, however, remember if the B-24 made it back intact, but I highly doubt it.

One of the best is still the A-26 that got itself an Me 262, however. The fact remains that if you get in front of that many .50 cals, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Ju 52 or a F-22, you’re not going to survive.

Logan Hartke

I agree with most of the above posts in that there are bits and pieces that are more advanced than others. Some have more advanced weapons systems, some have more advanced sensors, some have more advanced avionics, etc., but I feel that the most advanced Mi-8/17 derivative in regards to airframe is the Mi-17V-7 with the VK-2500 engine and X-type tail rotor. It also has the same main rotor system of the Mi-28 in addition to the other elements it shares.

Theoretically, you could build Mi-17s with the “dolphin” nose, a rear ramp, VK-2500 engines, composite rotor system, X-type tail rotor, Mi-28 weapons system, 5 MFDs, and a nice stabilized IR ball-mount that would be the most advanced Mi-17 in the world. Currently, such a combination doesn’t exist, but the pieces certainly do.

Logan Hartke

Unmodernized F-4Es to the F-35? I don’t care whose generational yardstick you’re using, that’s quite a jump.

Logan Hartke

Governments do that all the time to prevent the next government from coming in and undoing their work.

You saw the same thing with the Austrian Eurofighter deal.

Logan Hartke

…while keeping the factories and banks happy.

Governmental hypocrisy at its finest.

…and warlords.

Logan Hartke