pfcemWhat does IAF want to do with MRCA, in the first place? What’s MRCA’s role in IAF structure?
As I understand it, primarily as a medium strike aircraft & secondarily as a fighter (replacing Jaguar, MiG-21, MiG-23BN, MiG-23MF & MiG-27) to back-up the upper tier air-superiority fighters (Su-30 & PAK-FA/FGFA).
pfcemwhile true in the generic sense, in this case we are talking about the KC-30 vs the KC-767 and it most definitely does
the KC-30 has more capability than the KC-767
No it does not. Not in real world US tanker operations the VAST majority of the time.
It’s within 1%, which to me is the same price
If for some reason it’s not within 1% then this entire discussion is moot 😉
No it is not. The cost evaluation of the last solicitation was SERIOUSLY flawed (in the KC-30’s favor).
KC-767 can fit more booms on the ground, KC-30 can fit more booms in the air
Its longer range and greater endurance allows more basing flexibility and more time on station, which results in more booms in the air
Dream on. More booms on the ground is more booms in the air. The KC-30 doesn’t have enough greater endurance to make up for the lower numbers on the ground.
The KC-767, with its ability to operate from MORE airfields & in LARGER NUMBERS from each airfiled allows more basing flexibility & short transit – putting MORE booms closer to the refueling points/orbits, buring significantly LESS fuel themselves (that means more fuel for everything else), negating & possibly even reversing the 1-vs-1 fuel capacity/endurance advantage of the KC-30.
***
The major assumption of some people here is that the KC-X will just quietly replace the KC 135 and continue the same sort of operations as they do today. The introduction of any new material in the inventory always comes with evaluations of the best way to operate it in the field. If the USAF find the extra capabilty of the KC 30, or the 777 for that matter, to offer more capability then operations will be adjusted to suit. It is naive to think that the tanker force will just trade-in the 135’s for new equipment and carry on “business as usual”.
I don’t know ANYBODY making such an assumption.
The unsupported assmption some ARE making however is that by simply having greater capacity than the KC-767 translates to the ability to actually utilize it a significant portion of the time. Just look at the historical averages (&/or the 2008 total chart – including not only the KC-135 but also & in particular the KC-10). Sure better planning & the greater offload capacity of the new tankers will NO DOUBT increase those numbers.
Based on the 2008 total chart & assuming say a 50% increase per sortie offload OF EVERY SORTIE & the KC-767 gets you about ~83% of the total while the KC-30 only gets you up to about ~93% (the KC-777 gets you up to just over 98%). In such example the ‘extra capacity’ of the KC-30 would only be of use ~10% of the time. And that is even using the unrealistic assumption that the same number of KC-767s & KC-30s operating in the same numbers from the same bases as the KC-135s. Factor in the shorter transit of more KC-767s vs KC-30s & that 10% drops & could even be reversed.
pfcemIf I remember correctly, the USAF didn’t want the A-10 either. Seems they have come in very handy the last 8 years or so.
You recall incorrectly. The USAF DID want the A-10. Or at least some kind of dedicated CAS – there was some debate as to if the A-10 was the correct answer to the CAS problem (other proposed solutions ranged from essentially a new build A-1 to something more like the A-7).
With the end of the Cold War & the “peace dividend” there certianly were those in the USAF which preferred to keep multi-role aircraft like the F-16 rather than the ‘single mission’ A-10. But contrary to ‘popular sentiment’, the A-10 is in fact a much loved & revered asset throughout MOST of the USAF despite the cliche of it not being a “sexy” high-tech fighter.
pfcemUnless the KC-30 is cheaper compared with extra capability of the KC-777.
So you admit that ‘extra’ capability is of no value. 🙂
Remember its a cost tradeoff – the current RFP doesn’t give extra points for the KC-777, is 10 points for both KC-30 and KC-777.
But if the CMARPS data accomodates larger/heavier aircraft, the KC-777’s IFARA score COULD be high enough (I doubt it unless the data is altered to the KC-777) to offset its cost.
Slide 4 shows 2008 (how many high intensity missions and/or conflicts occurred in 2008?) – if the KC-30 is useless, then the KC-777 is worse.
But the RFP is based on low intensity operation figures (see flight hours/year).
And in higher intensity operations it actually shifts MORE in the favor of the KC-767 as the proportion of lower offload per sortie increases due to MANY more fighter/attack opertions…
Slide 6 is a fair reference – the KC-767 is only slightly larger, but more capable.
Exactly. The KC-767 is more than enough tanker for the requirements but is not so much larger & heavier as to require so much MILCON.
Slide 7 is pure Boeing Kool-Aid. Looking at Google Earth, Boeing is only showing the main ramp space at Incirlik, Turkey. In reality it has many smaller ramp spaces scattered around. The 2009 view clearly shows KC-135 parked at these other spaces as well.
Yes it is a VERY simplified example. But you SHOULD get the idea. Reference Boeing’s earlier (last solicitation) example of an operation utilizing all Air Bases used during ODS/OIF (including the effect of losing a base).
I prefer the more complicated/encompassing [more accurate accurate] approach of a threater-wide fleet operation to the over simplified single base (or even worse single tanker) [less accurate] approach.
Slide 9 is kinda the point, Boeing are doing the right thing here by proposing both KC-767 and KC-777. KC-767 might be right-sized for the 7 existing airbases – but if thats an issue the KC-777 is also out. Extra capability of the KC-777 isn’t an issue (see slide 4) – likewise the KC-30.
No, Slide 9 shows what a tanker the size of the KC-30 SHOULD be capable of.
But you are correct the ‘extra’ capacity of the KC-30 & KC-777 is of little/no value the VAST majority of the time – and for when it is, THAT is what supplemental/complimental fleet of large (KC-Y) tankers are for, such ‘extra’ capacity is wasted on your core fleet of medium tankers.
Slide 14 is irrevalent, except for lobbyists – there are no points given for ‘US jobs’.
I bet a LOT more than just lobbyists find it revalent…
Its cost vs capability – Beoing is quoting 2008 low intensity operation figures. The RFP mentions classified wartime scenarios – tankers on ramp space (size) providing offload to combat aircraft (booms in air, fuel offload), etc.
But agian, the RFP is based on low intensity operation figures…
In the very simplified example I attempted – are 20.3 KC-767 vs 13 KC-30 vs 10.1 KC-777 equivalents worth the cost? There is a huge gap between the KC-767 and the KC-30/KC-777; there isn’t much between the KC-30 and KC-777 (whats aviation fuel worth these days?). Are the overall program costs worth the capability?
The reality of US tanker operations are significantly different from your simplified example.
***
the KC-30 offers more capability than the 767 FOR THE SAME PRICE
if you’re going to get the 767, why not get more capability FOR FREE
Sorry, more capacity DOES NOT equal more capability.
And the KC-30 is NOT the same price as the KC-767. Its total life cycle cost is greater.
but we don’t, and in the end it’s more important to get more ‘booms in the sky’ :diablo: by buying the more affordable KC-30
You get more booms in the air with the KC-767.
Just because you buy the same number of KC-30 vs KC-767, you can’t operate as many KC-30 from as many airfields as the KC-767…
pfcemPlease note that the internal fuel of Gripen-NG is exactly 0.51 times that of F/A-18. This maintains the 0.5 empty-weight and 0.5 times max. thrust.
The fuel fractions of all other contenders are also nearly similar between 2.9 to 3.0 only. Thus, all the 6 contenders will have the same combat radius when loaded in a typical fighter config. of 6 A2A missiles, 4 A2G munitions, and pods.
Not true.
Empty weight, thrust & fuel fraction only give an indication of no payload (internal fuel only) range/combat radius.
Once you star putting payload (weapons, pods, ADDITIONAL external fuel) the fuel fractions change…
Smaller/lighter aircraft are MORE effected than larger/heavier aircraft. 🙂
As far as nuclear payloads are concerned, I maintain that leaving aside Gripen, all others have nuclear capability.
But nuclear capability played NO role in termining the size of ANY of the competators.
Now the original F-18 was in Category 3 : 11 tons empty weight, and 2×80 kN = 160 kN thrust. But for some reason, it’s internal fuel was “abysmally low” at only 4,900 kgs, compared to over 5,800 kgs of the Typhoon. This was a major design deficiency in the original F/A-18.**
The internal fuel capacity of the Eurofighter Typhoon is LESS than that of the F/A-18A-D. Actual capacity is still classified but from what I have seen it is in the 4300-4750 kg (~10,000 +/- 500 lbs) range.
pfcemCheck out the Boeing marketing at:
http://static.unitedstatestanker.com/SiteContent/Static/Docs/AFA-2009-Tanker-Briefing.pdf
Pages/slides 4, 6, 7 (you can see a less simplified example in a previous Boeing presentation), 9 & 13 pretty much sum up the realities of the ‘issue’.
pfcemReally?! 😀
Yes really.
The per unit cost of the F-22 was still decreasing & was anticipated (if procured in significant numbers) to drop BELOW $120 million. Even at the $140 million average of the 60 FY2007-2009 MYP, procurement of 20 F-22 a year (which is pathetically low to begin with) represents <0.6% of the USAF budget.
The anticipated total program cost of the F-22 is $73.5 billion for 442 aircraft.
In 1996 the anticipated total program cost of the F-22 was $73.5 billion for 442 aircraft.
When the present examples have not reached the anticipated standard. A part of that can not even brought to that by technical limitations.
“The current F-22A modernization plan will result in 34 Block 20 aircraft used for test and training, 63 combat-coded Block 30s fielded with Increment 3.1, 83 combat-coded Block 35s fielded with Increment 3.2, and 3 Edwards AFB-test coded aircraft. Consideration is also being given to upgrade the 63 Block 30s to the most capable Block 35 configuration.”[70]
The unfunded Increment 3.3 upgrade will include automatic target tracking and so bring the F-22 fleet to full fifth generation situational awareness.[63]
On 16 September 2009, Gates said “Our commitment to this aircraft is underscored by the 6 and-a half billion dollars provided over the next few years to upgrade the existing F-22 fleet to be fully mission-capable.”
😎
Amazing how long & how expensive it is to do such things when funding for the program continually is cut…
pfcemWell unfortunately people forget that because who ever or whome ever organised the issuance of the RFP seems to have forgotten why they were buy aircraft and for what particular purpose.
Hence we forget and debate all that are on the table.
Anyway MMRCA acronym does not have “strike” within it, i can see combat but not strike aircraft.
“Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft” doesn’t has “fighter” within it either. 🙂
“Multi-Role Combat Aircraft” & “Strike Fighter” are just different wordings for the same role(s).
So “Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft” (MMRCA) could just as rightly be “”Medium Strike Fighter” (MSF).
One need only look at the list of aircraft the MMRCA is replacing (& thier respective roles in the Indian Air Force) to see ‘what’ it is…
pfcemthe MPLCC wasn’t adjusted for ifara last time (like it was for fuel costs and milcon)
this is a completely new adjustment that has never been done before
previously ifara was a separate factor with no connection to price
now it is being used to directly modify the price
OK, now I get what you are getting at. Sorry about my confusion.
So YOUR hypothetical fuel cost & MILCON adjustments are ‘adjustments’ from the last solicitation (to account for their altered evaluation methodology) while IFARA in a new adjustment to the new solicitation. Right?
pfcemWhy do so many ignore that the MMRCA is the ‘middle tier’ to India’s future three tier fighter force? Air superiority will be the primary responsibility of the Su-30s & PAK-FA/FGFA. MMRCA is primarily a ‘medium’ strike fighter.
pfcemThe total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion icluding less than 200 F-22A built from that. 😉
The best thing to claim about that is. Without that F-22-program, the F-35-program had to be even higher.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.htmlWe all do remember, when the high defense-spending was one of the reasons to “kill” the former SU. Some do forget, that the USA was pushed to its limits too, when doing that weapons-race.
None of which supports your assertion that the F-22 production run was terminated for cost-reasons.
pfcemAside from the big argument going on, does anyone know how the two aircraft would perform from a 6,000ft runway? I know the 767AT would be unable to operate at MTOW from a 7,000ft runway, but if they chose to base the tanker on the 767-200?, what about the KC-30?
Also are these points in the mandatory section?
A KC-767AT with a full load of fuel would be ~20,000-25,000 lbs BELOW its MTOW. To get the KC-767AT up to its MTOW you would have to load it up with ~20,000-25,000 lbs MORE than its maximum fuel capacity. As per the last solicitation, the KC-767AT can operate from a 7,000′ runway with a full load of fuel & exceed the fuel offload at range requirements (which were/are set at the capability of the KC-135R from a 10,000′ runway). For a 6,000′ runway it is simply a matter of what take-off weight can the KC-767AT operate at.
The KC-767AT has better runway performance than a ‘base’ 767-200ER-based KC-767 (greater lift flaps & higher thrust engines) but a ‘base’ 767-200ER-based KC-767 has better runway performance than a KC-135R…And if Boeing decides to bid with a ‘base’ 767-200ER airframe rather then the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT, it can still imporve the ‘base’ 767-200ER-based KC-767 runway performance with higher thrust engines.
For the KC-30 the problem is not runway performance as it exceed that of the KC-767AT, but rather the KC-30’s size (footprint) & weight (ACN). Most airfields with <8,000′ runways were simply not intended/designed/built to operate aircraft the size (footprint) & weight (ACN) of the A330-200/KC-30 & even those that CAN, can only do so in small numbers. At least in terms of weight (ACN), IF size (footprint) is not an issue, the KC-30 can alleviate that issue to some degree by operating at lower take-off weight (just like the KC-767AT) BUT what ever the weight (ACN) limit of the airfield, up the point where the KC-30 can operate at sufficient weight (ACN) to operate with greater payload than the KC-767AT, the KC-767AT can ACTUALLY operate with a GREATER payload – PLUS, the KC-767AT’s smaller size (footprint) is less of a limitation.
Of course the MILCON portion of the evaluation is meant to represent the cost of improving/updating airfileds to better accomodate each tanker.
***
i did and it doesn’t support your boeing propaganda
Actually, what I have been saying comes from the GAO ruling, not Boeing. Thanks for once again demonstraring your disingenuousness.
i’m comparing to a baseline of the last contest which had them at identical lifecyce costs
milcon costs were already included in last contest
they were just judged to not be adequately justified
that doesn’t mean the milcon costs were low or high, it just means they didn’t justify them
If your comparison is “a baseline of the last contest”, then your IFARA adjustment must be zero also (unless you are assuming the new IFARA will be FURTHER adjusted to accomodate/favor the KC-30). 🙂
the only alternate reality is your dreams
both boeing and the gao have conceded using ifara as it was last time
No the alternate reality was created within the CMARPS by altering the real world data.
Neither Boeing NOR the GAO have conceeded using IFARA as it was last time.
Boeing protest on IFARA was that it did not feel the KC-X Source Selection Team had not included “insights and observations” in its evaluation. The GAO found that it did.
my understanding is the fuel cost calculation was changed as such:
old: 25 years * 750 hours/year = 18,750 hours
new: 40 years * 489 hours/year = 19,560 hourswhich is 4.32% more hours than before
ifara adjustment is simply (1-1.79/1.90)
If your comparison is “a baseline of the last contest”, then your IFARA adjustment must be zero also (unless you are assuming the new IFARA will be FURTHER adjusted to accomodate/favor the KC-30). 🙂
they also weren’t able to introduce any new evidence or documentation at that time
the gao appeal process is all about legalities not realities
BS! They were encouraged/REQUESTED to introduce ANY/ALL relevant (INCLUDING new) evidence or documentation.
however they have made a decision about which tanker NOT to offer
they don’t know what they will offer, but it won’t be the 767AT
No they have not. Until the final proposal is submitted, the KC-767AT is still a possibility (I am NOT saying it is likely, only that it, or something similar, IS still a possibility). Boeing COULD even be sneaky & say it isn’t offering the KC-767AT right up until its final bid offer (all the while crunching & evaluating the numbers to see if the KC-767AT, or something similar, gets the best ‘score’) & ‘drop’ it, or something similar, as its final bid offer…
they why would they make a pronouncement right before the release of the draft RFP if their decision depended on the requirements?
they made the pronouncement because they were confident that whatever the requirements, the 767AT is dead
😉
you left out the part about the KC-30’s lower acquisition cost
Indeed I did.
pfcemno
sorry bud, this is the root of your ‘confusion’
it met more nonmandatory requirements, but not the important ones
what the KSST got dinged on was they didn’t make it clear how they would value everything so Boeing could cry foul and say “but we didn’t know you considered tanker capability to actually be important”
Read the GAO ruling!
What the KC-X Source Selection Team god ‘dinged’ on was not assessing the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation which WHERE both clear AND unambiguous. INCLUDING specificly what the KC-X Source Selection Team was NOT to give extra credit/value for, but did, AND the relative value/priority of requirements (not each & every one of the 808 requirements individually but the groups/types of requirements relative to the other groups/types), which the KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess in accordance with the solicitation.
yes it does
i know this is hard for you to wrap your mind around, but try
when you pick a winner, you are selecting the one you think is superior
period
why would you select the one you don’t want?
there was no charade, they selected the product they felt was superior
Good God man. The Boeing bid met more requirements, was superior in more & higher value requirements AND was the lower cost bid (even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology). If assessed by the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation the KC-767AT was the clear winner yet the KC-X Source Selection Team ‘selected’ the KC-30.
Instead of saying they thought the KC-30 was better despite the results of its own evaluation, it LIED about the results.
no, the problem wasn’t the evaluation criteria, the problem was not fully documenting the evaluation criteria beforehand so all the bidders knew exactly how everything would be evaluated
I didn’t say the problem was the evaluation criteria (although the GAO did identify some problems with some things – MILCON & other discrepancies in MPLCC for example). The evaluation criteria WERE fully documented before hand & BOTH bidders knew exactly how everything SHOULD be evaluated (except for one particular criteria, that the GAO found was clear & unambiguous in more ways than one, where one bidder fooled itself).
the fuel cost is a 4.32% adjustment upward from the previous number
the milcon is an unknown adjustment. i wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the adjustment will favor 767. last time they just evaluated one base they considered representative, this time they are evaluating more bases to get a more accurate estimate. that estimate may be above or below the previous number
How can MILCON not favor the 767. No matter what the airfield, the KC-30 require more MILCON than the KC-767.
It will be interresting to see the makeup of the, IIRC, 15 airfileds evaluated for MILCON. How many are relatively small airfields with little or no current ability to operate the KC-30. How many are very large airfileds which are currently capable of operating aircraft even larger & heavier than the KC-30 (& in which case which specific areas are used for the evaluation – Kadena for example is the largest US air base in the Pacific theater YET the areas of the base where KC-135s currently operate from require SIGNIFICANT modification/rebuilding to accomodate the KC-30 in significant numbers).
ifara does absolutely favor the KC-30 and using the numbers from last competition (using the now-dead 767AT), gives a 5.79% adjustment downward for the KC-30 price
IFARA only favors the KC-30 is they once again use alternate reality data so that it can complete the evaluation missions…AND depending on how far from reality the model data used is, the KC-777 IFARA score could possibly be high enough to overcome its higher cost. 😉
so we have 4.32% down for the 767, 5.79% down for the KC-30 and an unknown adjustment for milcon
How do you calculate the fuel adjustment being 4.32% & the IFARA adjustment being 5.79%?
blah blah no big deal, now they’ve had time to generate the paperwork to make everyone happy
they said they expect both teams to meet the mandatory requirements, so i have to assume they know any outstanding issues have been dealt with
For the sake of the NG/EADS bid not being rejected for no meeting one or more of the manditory requirements, lets hope so. They weren’t able to last time & if in fact the KC-30 can meet the requirements (I am NOT saying that it can’t), it should NOT have been THAT difficult to have reasonably justified that it did last time…
sure they do, i even started a thread about it
Rick Lemaster, the head of Boeing’s tanker program said they wouldn’t offer the 767AT (aka frankentanker)
that’s pretty definitive to me
if you’re referring to the possibility of a 777 bid, get real
if they actually bid the 777 i’ll eat my shirt
I wouldn’t expect you to have visited the Boeing tanker blog but Boeing has not made any decision about which tanker to offer or whether to offer both KC-7A7 tankers.
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/blog/main/2009/9/29/too-early-for-a-decision
And while Boeing has said it does not plan to offer the KC-767AT this time, that comment was made BEFORE the release of the draft RFP. Depending on how the FUEL BURN/MILCON/IFARA numbers work out, Boeing MAY in fact conclude that the KC-767AT (or something much like it), by its calculations, get the highest score…
I THINK Boeing will keep the KC-777 as an option thoughout the process in order to trump the “bigger is better” BS & remind the new selection team how close the KC-30 is in size to a large tanker but without the fuel capacity of a large tanker (all the while reminding them that KC-X is SUPPOSED to be a MEDIUM KC-135 replacement tanker & that the forthcoming KC-Y is SUPPOSED to be the LARGE KC-10 replacement tanker).
http://static.unitedstatestanker.com/SiteContent/Static/Docs/resources-brochure.pdf
they have to keep the requirements artificially low just so the 767 can compete since they are required to have a competition :diablo:
what? that’s what you wanted me to say right?
again, i think they possibly did change the requirements to favor the KC-30. including the ifara adjustment to the price is a huge concession to the KC-30
PLEASE tell me you are joking. That one is ripe EVEN FOR YOU. They are essentially the same requirements that NG/EADS demanded last time in order to accomodate the KC-30.
Again, the IFARA adjustment will depent much on what data is used in the model. Use real world data & the KC-30 has no chance. Use alternate reality data & risk the KC-777 trumping the KC-30. 🙂
It certainly would look like a fix if somehow the KC-30’s higher IFARA score were enough to overcome the KC-767’s fuel burn AND MILCON advantage. That’s what you wanted me to say right?
yes they did show how the KC-30 was better than the KC-767
(gee, arguing using the ‘pfcem method’ is pretty nifty)
No they did not.
The Boeing bid met more requirements, was superior in more & higher value requirements AND was the lower cost bid (even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology).
IF the KC-X Source Selection Team HAD in fact shown how the KC-30 was better than the KC-767, then the GAO would not have sustained Boeing protect because even with all the ‘issues’ they would not have effected the outcome.
pfcemthey didn’t say that because it didn’t
Yes it did. It meet more requirments, was superior in more & higher value requirements AND was the lower cost bid (even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology).
yes they did, that’s what selecting it means, that they thought it was the superior product
No it does not. Again, if so why the charade?
you don’t choose the inferior product
Yet under the the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation they did…
they were practically identical in cost last time but they’ve changed the way they calculate cost
Yes they have.
namely including the IFARA adjustment and adding a few more hours to the lifecycle evaluation and possibly different milcon costs
it is not clear to me how those changes will balance out
Lets see…two ‘cost criteria’ which favor smaller/lighter tankers & one which could (but not necessarily does) favor larger/heavier tankers. 🙂
Oh, & those requirements the GAO said the KC-X Source Selection Team did not reasonable justify that the KC-30 meet…they are MANDITORY requirements in the new draft RFP.
boeing will bid a cheaper tanker that will also have a lower ifara, so more uncertainties
Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Boeing does not even know yet what it will bid so don’t be so disingenuous to claim that you do.
well that’s accounted for under the ifara adjustment to a certain extent
Agreed. So the question is will the IFARA be valid or ‘fixed’…
i’m not sure i understand your question
If, as you claim, a larger/heavier tanker (like the KC-30) is what is now wanted, why not change the requirements to reflect that instead of keeping requiremnts which reflect the desire for a smaller/lighter tanker (like the KC-767).
they showed how the KC-30 could meet their requirements better than the KC-767
No they did not, In fact the opposite is the case. They ignored their own findings.
why would they need to change their requirements?
Because, as you claim, they want a larger/heavier tanker (like the KC-30) rather than a smaller/lighter tanker (like the KC-767).
pfcemum, they did say so
in case you missed it, they SELECTED THE KC-30
The KC-30 ‘selection’ was a charade. They DID NOT come out & say that even though the KC-767AT proved to better meet/fit the requirments of the solicitation (at a lower price) but “EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared” or anything anywhere close to it.
the new way of calculating the costs has already determined the winner . . . we just don’t know who that is yet
so in short, maybe they have
Thats funny. The KC-767AT was the lower cost bid the last time. And that was using the majorly flawed cost evaluation. The new RFP looks pretty much to be the same ‘key’ requirements with a fair bit of clearification with an effort towards more accurate cost evaluation.
Although it DOES look as though this time the winner is to be the bid evaluated to be the least costly rather than the one which best meets/fits the requirements.
BUT, if as you claim, “EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared” why have the requirements not changed to show this?
Sign In
