Look pcFEM, this is ridiculous.

Am I supposed to run around after your documents?!
If you claim something from some document put it on public display, or keep quiet and stop wasting our time.

No, you are suppose to have already read said documents.

How can you be taken seriously when commenting about the KC-X program if you haven’t even read any KC-X program documents.

***

Boeing’s vice president for tankers wrote that one objective in rewriting the specifications was to “prevent an AoA (Analysis of Alternatives) from being conducted.”

So no only do you have Boeing admitting that they rewrote the specs, but that they specifically rewrote them to exclude the competition (KC-30)

I don’t know how you can deny his plain writing

oh wait, yes i do :rolleyes:

This isn’t the tanker lease.

1. i still don’t see that anywhere

2. even IF it does, you can’t guarantee those numbers represent the same scenario

for instance the RFP specifies a 2 hour reserve

do boeing’s numbers include a 2 hour reserve? you don’t know and have no way of knowing

Try reading something PRIOR to the [round 2] KC-X final RFP…

***

Kid, I’m talking about a document from 25.Sept.2009.
In this document there’s no mention of KC-135 in KPP threshold context, nor in the following paragraph (3.1.1.1 or 3.1.1.2).

Are you saying USAF rewritten KPPs in last two months, again??
If that’s so post new document.

Try reading documents from the [round 2] KC-X final RFP…

***

So the RFP is written to conform to ONE product..

No, the RFP was written to what the USAF wants/needs. But it IS obvious what ‘one’ product most closely matches…

Now the basic underlying issue is that procurement has to be open to full competition.

No, the underlying issue is that the USAF knows what it wants/needs & already knows what of the products availaible most closely matches what it wants/needs. It was SO obvious in 2002 that the KC-30 (then known as the KC-330) did not match that it was REJECTED. But due to the demands of Congress, the USAF can no longer reject the KC-30 & thus must change its requirements/criteria to accomodate it to satisfy Congress (otherwise it risks Congress refusing to fund the program).

So the RFP has to allow other products to compete.. if its not then the competition not valid…..

If other products (as this competition states that current airframes are a pre requisite) on the market are so far from the RFP that the ‘winner’ is a fore gone conclusion then its not a full competition…hence its not legal..

So the RFP has to be altered to allow these other products to compete…even if it means going away from the initial ‘ideal’ solution…..

No it does not.

Normally, the requirement is ONLY to offer the contract up for bid. Normally, the agency has every right to REJECT a noncompetative offer & sole source the contract when only one offer mets the requirements. But the Congress demanded ‘full competition’ changed that…

The conclusion is that the RFP which most closely defines what the USAF wants is not compatible with the pre-requisties of open competition and current airframes. This type of RFP works for a ‘cleansheet design’ (say F-35) but not for the derivative type.

So the USAF RFP will need to permit both to compete fairly….even if it means allowing things further from the ideal than initially envisaged (like size and weight…and capacity/ capability variations…

Thus the IDIOCY of the Congress demanded ‘full competition’ when the only ‘competition’ to what the USAF has previously chosen is the very NONCOMPETATIVE ‘competition’ the USAF REJECTED for not meeting its requirements.

We can be certain that the winner will be decieded not by the USAF/DoD but by the GAO.

You need to do some basic research as to the role of the GAO.

***

except the ‘almost original’ requirements were drafted by BOEING specifically to match the 767 and EXCLUDE the KC-30 and had nothing to do with the needs of the warfighter

saying they have to be changed makes me break out the world’s smallest violin for Boeing

No they were not. Stop trying to rewrite history.

where does it say that line represents the KC-135R?

The line doesn’t. The KC-X solicitation DOES.

***

First and foremost the line you described has nothing to do with KC-135A, let alone R.

The line IS the estabished baseline which IS that of the KC-135R.

It’s abstract KPP mandatory threshold.
There’s no mention of KC-135 in the whole paragraph as the matter of fact and not even in the following one.

Second, there’s no 3.2.1.1.1 and 3.2.1.1.2 paragraphs, but 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2.

The text in purple is DIRECT COPY & PASTE from the [round two] KC-X final RFP! I did not feel like making the effort DIRECTLY copy/upload/post Figure 3.1.

Third, I didn’t see the first draft, but this one suspiciously stinks of being tailored for 767.
Why?
Well, let’s see mandatory climb to 10k ft. It locks climbing speed to 250 KIAS. Why?!
767 has lower wing loading than 135, so slower climbing speed suits it better, while 135 must burn more fuel to maintain speed, due higher alpha and drag. The difference is significant, particularly at low FLs.
Why loiter orbit at fixed 275 KIAS, again?!
Lower wing loaded aircraft is in advantage here as well. Each tanker should fly according to it’s best aerodynamic/engine performance, except during refueling phase in which the speed is defined by fuel recipient’s aerodynamic capabilities.

However TBH, given KC-767 miserable performance, I’d imagine KPP thresholds needed to be significantly lowered for this second round, to give 767 at least a chance to meet some of them. Otherwise, there would be no contest.

What are you smoking?

pfcem, why are you wasting ppl’s time on this forum?

YOU are the one wasting people’s time. I am providing the ACTUAL facts (in THIS specific case directly from the [round two] KC-X solicitation) & setting the record straight from the half truths, misrepresentations & outright lies of Airbus/EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers like you.

***

Oh and pfcem I’ve spent far too many years writing public works specs…..the reality is that 99% are written based on what is avaliable out there and the products that have already been analysed and determined to most closely match the desires…

The USAF is no different. They know what they want, they know what is out there and have written their RFP with that knowledge. So there may indeed be no deliberate bias, but there will be bias.

EXACTLY!

In ALL THREE rounds the RFP has been clear as to what it is the USAF wants AND what most closely matches.

If the A330 is heavier than a KC-10 but has 110,000lbs less fuel what is all this extra weight taken up by?

12′ more fuselage length & 32′ 6″ more wingspan.

I was under the impression most OPERATIONAL tanker missions involve flying round in a track in the sky. These tracks are kept operational 24 hours a day to give planes a regular and constant place to get fuel. Kind of like a flying gas station. If this is the case why would tankers be coming back without using up all there fuel? This would seem like a waste of resources.

Track is only ONE of the two refuelling tactics. In anchor point refuelling the tankers & receivers meet at a pre-determined point.

And while a comparatively small number of tanker will be in the air 24 hours a day, MOST won’t. There are typically surges in activity that require large number of tankers in the air over a comparatively small amount of time as well as ‘lulls’ in activity that require comparatively few tankers in the air. Having tankers in the air doing nothing but burning fuel just because they still have fuel to burn is a REAL waste of resources.

***

USAF says KC-135R can offload 150k lb at 1300nm.
FAS says KC-135A can offload 120k lb at 1150nm.

Boeing says KC-135 (presumably A – cross referenced with FAS) can offload 119k lb at 1000nm after unconstrained take off.
Boeing says KC-135 (presumably A – cross referenced with FAS) can offload 79k lb at 1000nm after 7k ft take off.

EADS says KC-767AT can offload 117k lb at 1000nm after unconstrained take off.
Boeing says KC-767AT can offload 119,566 lb at 1000nm after unconstrained take off.

…and yet…

you manage to come with this poor excuse of a document (imageshack picture) and claim otherwise ??? …

Apples-to-oranges.

THE APPLES-TO-APPLES NUMBERS THAT MATTER.

Fuel offload at range from a 10,000′ runway.
500nm
KC-135R: 117,00 lbs
KC-767AT: 144,128 lbs
difference: KC-767AT 27,128 lbs (23.2%) more
1000nm
KC-135R: 94,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 119,556 lbs
difference: KC-767AT 25,556 lbs (27.2%) more
1500nm
KC-135R: 69,500 lbs
KC-767AT: 94,983 lbs
difference: KC-767AT 25,483 lbs (36.7%) more
2000nm
KC-135R: 44,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 70,480 lbs
difference: KC-767AT 26,480 lbs (60.2%) more
2500nm
KC-135R: 20,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 46,007 lbs
difference: KC-767AT 26,007 lbs (130%) more

The KC-767AT can even offload MORE fuel at range from a 7,000′ runway than the KC-135R can from a 10,000′ runway.

AND THE KC-135R OFFLOADS 50% MORE THAN THE KC-135A!

***

You conveniently forgot to add that the other competitor is so noncompetitive that the USAF rejected it in 2008. 😎

Neither offer was rejected in 2008.

***

You conveniently forgot to add that the other competitor is so noncompetitive that the USAF rejected it in 2008. 😎

Neither offer was rejected in 2008.

One was ‘selected’ (for BOGUS reasons) over the other but both offeres were considered acceptable.

***

And the “uncompetitive” aircraft rejected in 2002 was 1) rather different from the one offered in 2008, 2) relied on a boom which did not then exist, & would have to be developed – but which is now flying & transferring fuel – and 3) rejected in a selection so corrupt that people went to prison for it.

Everything’s changed.

1. Wrong. Same Airbus A330-200 platform.

2. 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.

3. The corruption occured BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE negotiating the details of the deal AFTER THE SELECTION, not during the selection.

***

Who’s using it to damn the 767s capability? I’m merely pointing out that the rejection of the A330 in 2002 has no relevance to the current bid. Both aircraft have changed since then, & that selection was corrupt in more ways than Druyun & her job-seeking. Just because the officials concerned went unpunished by prison because their corruption was not for personal reward, does not mean that it did not exist. When the people who are supposed to be acting on behalf of the US taxpayer & the USAF act as partisans for a particular supplier, going so far as to call themselves “Team Boeing” in internal communications, they are acting corruptly.

Sorry but the ‘corruption’ as you so disengenously call it was NOT corruption at all. It was people who’s job it was to get the USAF new tankers sooner rather than later screwing up trying to get them 6 YEARS earlier than previously mapped out.

As for the original posting of this thread, pfcem has forgotten to mention the original source.

Here it is:
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/blog/main/2009/09/14/tanker-101#comment-container
Not, as one might expect from a neutral researcher like pfcem, on an independent aviation site or even an individuals blog. Instead, it’s on a Boeing-owned, Boeing-registred and Boeing-edited agitprop website.

Adding some context sometimes compensates for lack of content 🙂

No I did NOT forget to mention the original source. Read the initial post again (I have highlighted the relavant passage in green so YOU can more easily see it).

***

LOL pfcem. This is all you got??
I presented official Boeing’s data and you came with home made baby chart, here?
So again, let’s see some official data.

KC-135 in unconstrained take off has a fuel offload of 119,000lb at 1000nm, 120000lb at 1150nm and 150000lb at 1300nm, depending on source and model, latter being for KC-135R.

KC-767AT in unconstrained take off has a fuel offload of 117,000lb to 119556lb at 1000nm, depending on source.

So, KC-767AT has the advantage of only 556lb over KC-135A in the same document which is supposed to sell KC-767 tanker??!! LOL, how convenient.
In all other documents, as can be seen from my links, the advantage is clearly on 135A’s side and 135R is overkill for 767AT.

But hey, what does these guys know?? I mean USAF just operates the plane, so it’s not like they really know what 135R can and can’t do?? ImageShack KNOWS, though. 😀

It is also important to note that all these pre KC-X numbers given for the KC-135 are for an unconstrained runway & not necessarily the same oprating conditions as those provided for KC-X & given for the KC-767 & KC-30.

THE KC-X REQUIREMENT IS TO MATCH (or exceed) THE FUEL OFFLOAD AT RANGE OF THE KC-135R FROM A 10,000′ RUNWAY. Not from an unconstrained runway. The KC-767AT even meets the KC-X OBJECTIVE (now ‘non-mandatory’) requirement [being able to match or exceed the fuel offload at range of the KC-135R from a 10,000′ runway] from a 7,000′ runway. THOSE are the numbers that matter & those ARE the numbers I have provided. Now try again to spin how the KC-767AT is inferior when can offload MORE fuel at range from a 7,000′ runway than a KC-135R can from a 10,000′ runway.

AND if you had bothered to look at the image I linked to (which is from a EADS/KC-30 source), you can see that the advantage of the KC-767 (AT or non-AT) over the KC-135R GROWS as the available runway length is reduced. For example, from a 8,000′ runway, the KC-767 (AT or non-AT) can offload ~DOUBLE the fuel at range @500nm [note that while the difference in lbs remains fairly constant as range increases the resulting % difference increases] as the KC-135R.

Who cares. Get another competitor…OR DON’T. As seen in F135/F136 case, competition isn’t popular in the US, today. 😀

Name another competator that can offer a currently in production airliner platform to mett the USAF’s requirements for a KC-135 replacement.

As for the F135/F136, we ALREADY HAD THAT COMPETITION & the F136 lost.

Competition DOES NOT mean you BUY both of everything.

***

‘Hey, if you don’t pick my tanker, then I won’t sell you my tanker !!!’

:confused: That’s one very weird style of blackmailing.. 😀

Thanks for once again demonstrating how ignorant/disingenuous you are.

Congress has degreed that there MUST BE A FULL COMPETITION (the USAF can no longer reject an offer for not meeting its requirements). You can’t have a competition if one of the only two possible bids drops out.

KC-X, KC-Y, KC-Z…maybe room for both 767 and KC-30??

No there is no room for a tanker than is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but 110,000 lbs LESS fuel capacity.

But my concern over 767 is how old is that airframe now? And like the KC-135, USAF probably wants 50 years of service? Ask Italy and Japan if they are happy with their 767s.

The 767 is every bit as ‘new’ (& in fact the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is NEWER) as the A330.

The USAF wants 40 years of service from the KC-X.

Japan IS & Italy will be once theirs enter service.

KC-30 – we are getting commonality: UK, France, Australia, Saudi, another?

For an immediate fix, USAF should go for the KC-30, and then look for a complementary airframe in the longer term (which would appease Boeing).

So the USAF should get a tanker which does not fit its requirements in order to have commonality with about two dozen foreign tankers. :rolleyes:

***

I have (as you may have noted from my previous post!).

Nowhere in ANY post have you given ANY indication of having listened to ANYONE who knows what they are talking about concerning US tanker operations.

? Why? It was completely different, and the offer of the correct aircraft/infrastructure for the job was taken up, seeing as it’s replacing two aircraft, the VC10 (comparable to the KC135, but comfier for passengers!) and the Tristar.

The RAF are also in the fortunate position of not having to overcome a historical link to either Boeing or Airbus products.:D

Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL IN AN UPROAR OVER THE US KC-767 TANKER LEASE. The UK program is EVEN WORE because not only is the UK leasing its tankers (which is more costly than buying them) it is contracting out the OPERATIONS of its tankers as well.

***

The entire force structure is going to more for less. The KC-30 is a fit to that trend. The 767 is more the square peg in the round hole. If Boeing wanted to compete they would do it on equal footing. Problem is Boeing is actually the one trying to use politics to force the USAF to let Boeing pass on a high profit product that really isn’t the best solution when it meets the competition.

Tsk, tsk, for people trying to imply otherwise.

What alternate universe are you from? It is the EXACT opposite. The KC-767 fits the existing US force structure. The KC-30 does not even come close. It is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but 110,000 lbs LESS fuel capacity.

Boeing has put forth the effort to actually provide the USAF with the tanker it is asking for. So much so as to have proposed a new 767 varient SPECIFICALLY to fit the requirements durning round two. And even before the release of the round three draft RFP indicated that it could off a 767, a 777 OR EVEN AN ALL NEW PLATFORM what ever the RFP called for.

***

The USAF does not think the A330 is too large, & neither do any of the last 4 other air forces to buy a tanker. I find it amusing that you believe you know better than all those air forces.

Airbus can’t offer the A310: it ceased production too long ago.

YES IT DOES! It said so in 2002 when it REJECTED the A330. And being TOO BIG was just ONE OF FOUR reasons it cited for rejecting it.

Look at the requirements from ALL THREE rounds, read the MAC tanker white paper & listen to the comments of tanker commanders (like John Handy & Stu Pugh).

What other Air Forces have chosen is irrelevant. They do not have ANYWHERE NEAR the requirements of the USAF.

***

How does the KC-30 compare to the KC-10?

KC-10
181′ 7″ x 165′ 4″
OEW: 240,000 lbs
ACN F: 056.1 – 061.5 – 074.4 – 101.4
ACN R: 045.1 – 054.6 – 066.7 – 077.4
fuel capacity: 356,000 lbs

KC-30
193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″
OEW: ~265,000 lbs
ACN F: 061.5 – 066.7 – 077.7 – 105.1
ACN R: 052.2 – 061.1 – 072.4 – 083.6
fuel capacity: 246,000 lbs

***

How’s that??

KC-135A carries max~92t of fuel – 202,800 lb
KC-767A carries max~73t of fuel – 160,660 lb
KC-767AT carries max~91.7t of fuel – 202,000 lb

KC-135A, range 1150nm fuel offload 120,000lbs –> http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/tankers/kc135.html
KC-767A, range 1000nm fuel offload 97,000lbs –> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/kc-x-fuel-offload-breakdown-1.html
KC-767AT, range 1000nm fuel offload ~117,000lbs –> http://static.unitedstatestanker.com/SiteContent/Static/Docs/AFA-2009-Tanker-Briefing.pdf
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf

LOL, the only item in which KC-767AT actually managed to best KC-135A is offload at 1,000nm from 7,000ft runway.

Have I managed to find “wrong” data again, or do I need to show official USAF data, which will put the last nail in 767’s coffin?

Dream on.

The KC-135E can offload 20% more fuel than the KC-135A.
The KC-135R can offload 50% more fuel than the KC-135A.
That is the benefit of more fuel efficent engines. 🙂

Fuel offload at range from a 10,000′ runway.
(difference is GREATER the shorter the runway)
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1536/impactofrunwaylengthonf.png
500nm
KC-135R: 117,00 lbs
KC-767AT: 144,128 lbs
difference: 27,128 lbs (23.2%)
1000nm
KC-135R: 94,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 119,556 lbs
difference: 25,556 lbs (27.2%)
1500nm
KC-135R: 69,500 lbs
KC-767AT: 94,983 lbs
difference: 25,483 lbs (36.7%)
2000nm
KC-135R: 44,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 70,480 lbs
difference: 26,480 lbs (60.2%)
2500nm
KC-135R: 20,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 46,007 lbs
difference: 26,007 lbs (130%)

As you can see, the KC-767AT can offload >25,000 lbs MORE than the KC-135R across the entire range. In fact it can even offload slightly more fuel than the KC-135R at 500nm GREATER range. It can even offload more fuel at the same range from a 7,000′ runway than the KC-135R can from a 10,000′ runway.

How is that Airbus can put a pressure on USAF and US gvt?

By what means?

By threatening to pull out of the Congress required competition if it doesn’t get its way.

***

I find it difficult to believe they expect to be constrained by runway length! The NATO standard 9,000ft will be considered short before too long.:)

Because one of the intents of the KC-X is to operate from smaller (non-NATO standard) airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks.