But of course.. your arguements and points are so credible..so well researched and presented.. or in your own words BS….

Why you are wrong has already been established. I just did not feel like repeating it.

Boeing has questionned the 1200 gpm. .because its in excess of ANY current USAF reciever…hence the “Why the change?” Question and it was not ‘convinced’ by the answer.. fine..

Wrong again. Boeing pointed out that there ARE current USAF recievers which can receive MORE than 1200 gal/min – hence the inconsistancy with the explination as to why 1200 gal/min was chosen.

But where the the blublazes do you get the notion that I said they asked for a change, let alone a reduction.. other than one of your Olympic standard leaps of imagination…

YOU WORDS…”Boeing are questionning the need for a 1200 gpm rate“…

Lets look at the USAF’s largest tanking base in Europe, Mildenhall.
We can assume, using historical data (your favourite) that tanking operations will continue from this base… Using historical data the 767 can replace the 135 as required…. (and exceed the KP thresholds).
But look a bit more… it becomes runway limited before it become payload limited.
In order to meet the balanced field requirements the runway at Mildenhall would need to be extended..as it approaches its MTOW load…

Now if this were a TDY location then such compromises would be accepted, perhaps less acceptable for the European USAF tanker hub…Its a matter of perception..

The KC-30 on the other hand is not limited by the runway length to carry its full fuel load….and can use the existing infrastructure as it stands.
In order to get the same number of airframes with the USAF standard spacing on the ramps some extensions are needed… the USAF standards are different to the ones used for civil aircraft operation… generally greater…

Also at Mildenhall the airside infrastructure extensions are possible.. runway extensions, regardless of cost, are improbable….but you know better no doubt…

BS. The KC-767 can offload MORE fuel than required from a 7,000′ runway. A KC-767 with a full load of 202,000 lbs of fuel is well below its MTOW.

ACN depends of the actual load of the aircraft…there are max and min values and interpolation between the two in proportion to the actual weight of the aircraft is standard..

So.. according to your historical data the KC-30 will be operating below its MTOW and hence at an ACN number below the value of the C-5 and 747…whilst when needed it can carry a bigger ACN.. even in excess of the PCN if the number if uses fits within the operating regime established for that airfield… The PCN is not an absolute..it is dependent on the maintenance regime demanded of the infrastructure..

So…. in order to use the max capability of the 767 runway extensions are the prime infrastructure improvement required… if a compromise is accepted then fine… KPP thresholds are met and exceeded…great…

In order to use the max capability of the -30airside infrastructure needs work and hangers need to be replaced…but the max capacity is far greater… KPP thresholds are exceeded etc etc..

But please, unless you have done the airfield studies, rather than just read them, allow others to have a very different view from yours.. that is not BS…

Err…According to CSI Inc/EADS NA the KC-30 requires a 11,000′ runway to operate at MTOW, the KC-767 ‘only’ 9,000′. 🙂
[Correction, max fuel offload. For max fuel offload the KC-30 is near MTOW, the KC-767 is well below.]

And in order to reduce its ACN, the KC-30 has to operate at reduced take-off weight. That means LESS PAYLOAD (fuel). As already pointed out, at a ACN/PCN of ~50 the KC-767 can actually offlroad MORE fuel at range than the KC-30.

Neither of which have the pods on the wings…or match the current KC-X specs…oh and you have forgotten the ‘delays’ that these programmes suffered due to ‘unexpected’ issues that Boeing, with its decades of tanking experience had not anticipated….

So the KC-30 might not yet be in service.. but the overall programme is far less problematic (at this time) and looks a bit more realistic…

Wrong.

Comparatively easy huh….I guess that’s why Boeing are questionning the need for a 1200 gpm rate when their 6th gen boom does not match that..
Easy to alter… like the 767 tankers for Japan and Italy…

Boeing hasn’t questioned the need for 1200 gal/min. It has questiond WHY the change & the inconsistency of the explination for the change. IT HAS NOT ASKED FOR THE RERQUIREMENT TO BE REDUCED.

We are well aware of your reading abilities…but what you are reading is written by others. I sit on that side of the fence..doing the work that looks at infrastructure improvements and the reasons behind it, the costs, and so forth. That work is then wrapped into the studies you read.

So from that perspective the issue of infrastructure improvements/ cost benefit analysis and ‘performance’ enhancements are ones I see possibly as ‘raw’ figures… and hence have an opinion that is different from you..

Quite the opposite.

The ‘comparatively little’ infrastructure improvements you speak about are very interesting…as in many cases the quantum is actually completely overshadowed by other aspects.. such as lack of actual phyiscal ownership or presence of additional land required.. for runway lengthening….or the specific cost of such improvements….

In comparison the cost of airside ramp and taxiway improvements may be high, but its falls within the realm of the possible……but hey you read the reports…somebody else does the work and presents you with the information…

The KC-767 DOES NOT REQUIRE runway lengthening. It EXCEEDS the KC-X runway/fuel offload requirements. In fact as runway lengths get shorter, the difference between the KC-767 & the KC-30 is REDUCED. Not to mention the fact that airfields with shorter runways generally have lower PCN (BOTH the RAND AOA & the CSI Inc./EADS NA study say that at a PCN of ~50 or less the KC-767 actually has greater fuel offload at range than the KC-30). And because the KC-767 can actulaly operate from much of the existing infrastructure, it requires comparatively little infrastructure improvement.

The KC-30 OTOH, despite its good runway performance (big aircraft with comparatively poor lifting/payload capability – I.E low MTOW for its size) is SO much bigger & heavier (bigger & heavier than every aircraft in the US inventory except for the C-5s & a few 747s) that it requires MAJOR infrastructure improvement.

You need to understand here a little bit of the role of the USAF in all of this..

I do.

The USAF is subject to the laws as enacted by an elected Congress.

And THE ‘law’ enacted which is throwing the NORMAL process out the window with the KC-X is the demand for a ‘full competition’. NORMALLY, the USAF need EITHER justify to Congress a sole source contract or OFFER the contract up for bid. NORMALLY, the USAF has every right to reject a bid offer it finds does not meet its requirements.

So first and foremost in needs to respect those laws.
The USAF demands may indeed be so well defined in a particular product…but if in so doing it breaks a law then the needs are the ones to be altered, not the law that applies to all government spending.

Not normally. NORMALLY there is no ‘law’ demanding a ‘full competition’.

Sadly for you the USAF needs are secondary to the actual legal demands of the nation it serves, regardless of perceived ‘need’ or ‘expertise’ the USAF may have in its technical areas.

Sadly for EVERYONE except those taking advantage of the situation to FORCE the USAF to accomodate a noncompetative offer that the USAF has rejected for NOT meeting its requirements.

It is absolutely correct that the USAF cannot write an RFP that is so closely matched to the 767 and excludes the 30..(as it would appear to have been done… from Boeing itself!)

It is absolutely INCORRECT. Bidders are responsible for making offers which meet the USAF requirements. The USAF is NOT required (nornmally) to alter it requirements to accomodate what ONE bidder wants to offer.

This automatically precludes competition and is therefore illegal.

Again, NORMALLY there is no ‘law’ requiring a ‘full competition’.

Thus the GAO will be asked to review any decsion in this regard and should they find that the RFP/ Evaluation or any other aspect of the process is incorrect they will make that call; regardless of the decision that the USAF/ DoD etc may have taken.

The GAO did not object to the tanker lease RFP (which as has been established WAS written specifically for the KC-767 variant that the USAF & Boeing had previously agreed to) OR the USAF rejection of the KC-30 &/or subsequent sole source of the contract to Boeing. Under NORMAL circumstances such is perfectly legal & acceptable.

The initial lease deal was cancelled not because of any inherent issue with the product, but with the surrounding process…

Exactly.

The second round was cancelled due to the process being flawed.. as run by the USAF/DoD….

Not only a flawed process but a process that was not follwed in accordance with the rules of the process.

To then imagine that the USAF/ DoD selection in this round will not be examined and challenged by the GAO is both ignorant and naieve. The GAO’s ruling WILL dictate the outcome.

The role of the GAO is to ensure that the process is ‘legal’ & is follwed in accordance with the rules of the process, NOT to make the determination of the winner.

As for your ramblings about the 2002 rejection of the KC-30 you have helpfully forgotten that at the time the EADS boom was a paper one..and whilst all the good words in the world can help; they were insufficient (rightly so) to overcomme the doubts that prevaled on the ability of EADS to develop such a boom in time when Boeing already had decades of experience. In the mean time EADS has flown this new generation boom….whilst Boeing’s proposal remains an engineering study supported by decades of real world experience. However the evaluation that the new generation boom as being flown by EADS is complaint means the underlying reason for the 2002 rejection has been removed, making the 30 a viable competitor.

BS.

{as previously posted}
Not having a working boom was only PART of ONE of four reasons for it being rejected. And in fact ALL FOUR reason are STILL valid today (except that Congress won’t let the USF reject the uncompetative paltform).

The KC-30 increase in size STILL does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload.
The KC-30 STILL presents a higher-risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement.
The KC-30 STILL has an 81% larger ground footprint than the the KC-135.
The KC-30 STILL requires greater infrastructure investment in order to operate effectively in worldwide deployment.
{as previously posted}

You really do need to understand that the USAF, having set up this procurement as a derviative as opposed to new design airframe has set a rod for its own back. The rules that apply do demand competition and rightly Congress are insisting that it is there… the product is not so specialised or reliant on such cutting edge technology that sole source route is acceptable.

No, YOU need to understand that the NORMAL ‘law’ DOES NOT require a ‘full competition’, ONLY that the contract be offered up for bid. The NORMAL ‘law’ DOES NOT require the USAF to alter its requirements to accomodate a noncompetative offer.

Congress might be ‘idiots’… but you elected them.. so where does the problem lie?

AT MOST I have had some small (just one vote of MANY) in electing THREE people in Congress…

***

I suppose pfcem’s hangup with the previous RFP processes may stem from not understanding that RFP requirements are mobile. The whole point of the RFP is to have input from potential bidders before the RFB.

On the contrary, I FULLY understand that the RFP requirements are mobile. THAT is the entire purpose of DRAFT RFPs! The [round two] KC-X RFP was rewritten/edited a half dozen times before the FINAL RFP was issued.