again the context made it obvious to everyone but you

767AT = 767AT, 767 != 767AT

No, 767 refers to the Boeing 767 platform & thus includes ALL 767 variations of which the KC-767AT is one.

If the intent is to refer specifically to the tanker lease variant you indicate such or use its designation (KC-767A).

well it’s been 6 years since the lease deal and they just announced that they will not offer the 767AT, so apparently not

Which has no relation whatsoever to the tanker lease & the tanker recapitalization plans at that time (other than that those plans were cancelled, which lead to the KC-X debacle which in now just starting all over again with a new draft RFP).

the 767AT would never have existed if EADS had not raised the bar and FORCED Boeing to create it (on paper) to be competitive and meet the requirements.

EADS didn’t raise the bar. It used the fact that it was politically impossible for the KC-30 to be rejected again to force the requirements/criteria to be altered to accomodate the KC-30 to the extent where by EADS believed that it would win (not EADS if fact ‘requested’ further changes to further accomodate the KC-30 but was rejected).

And with the tanker lease, a KC-767 like the KC-767AT (how much like only a few in/at Boeing & the USAF/DOD likely really know) WAS going to be developed for procurement in later batches.

now that the requirements have been lowered again, bye-bye AT

I will get back to you next week on that.

lolol yeah right

Yes right. Stop playing stupid, you know full well that the 100 lease tankers was only the begining AND that the reason why the USAF/DOD worked so hard on the KC-767 for the tanker lease was that it had already idenetified the 767 as platform to meet ALL its requirements.

where is your 767AT now?

In limbo. :p

the 767AT was a different model, no conversion would be possible

Not KC-767AT, the KC-767 that was going to be developed. And even at that just what of the KC-767AT could a ‘base’ tanker lease (essentially Italian) KC-767A not be upgraded near to?

unfortunately a hypothetical model that no longer has any basis in reality

BS. It just has much less chance of ultimately becoming KC-45. The latest RFP is still just in draft form & the prior RFP went through some rather significant changes…

from the context it’s clear (to everyone but you)

so let me be explicit about it: the non-AT 767 (the one offered in the lease deal and earlier) could NOT meet the AF’s requirements until Boeing eliminated some

Not what you said…You said the 767 (no reference to non-AT 767, just 767) could not meet all of the USAF’s requirements. The KC-767AT being a 767 & meeting all of the USAF’s original requirements (& then some) proves you wrong.

Of course the KC-767A offered for the tanker lease could not meet all the USAF requirements, at least not as it was to have been built & delivered. It wasn’t supposed/meant to!

BUT the KC-767AT proved that a further developed 767 could in fact meet all of the USAF’s requirements just as the USAF said & planned it would. The tanker lease was not the ‘final solution’, it was just to ‘kick-start’ the effort (getting 100 new tankers & allowing the retirement of the KC-135Es six years earlier) while a full spec/capability KC-767 (like the KC-767AT) was developed for procurement in post-tanker lease batches.

feel free to quote from any relevant sources to discredit Galloway anytime you like

anytime now . . .

whenever you feel like it . . .

take all the time you need . . .

Already been done. And you have already proven that doing so again is a waist of time & effort.

Besides, it is YOUR lies specifically I was referring to.

no, they just eliminated them

No it did not. A full spec/capability KC-767 (like the KC-767AT) meeting all USAF requirements was to be developed for procurement in post-tanker lease batches. AND the 100 leased tankers were to have been considered for purchase at the end of the lease & to be brought up to as near full spec/capability as possible.

***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767

Developed from to stay polite. Here you can read, why the KC-767A deal felt through and Boeing can be happy not be banned from that at all. 😉

No, the KC-767AT IS a 767! Yes, a developed 767 but still a 767 none the less.

The tanker lease fell through because Boeing discovered the corruption, fired both Sears & Druyun and released its findings to the authorities for subsequent criminal prosecution. Which lead to investigation into the entire tanker lease program. Investigation which discovered a number of ‘questionable’ actions/inactions tanken by the USAF/DOD in its efforts to get the deal done ASAP.

Your referencing wikipedia demonstrates you have literally months of research to do before you understand what happened.

Interesting point of view. The contractor has ZERO responsibility. They offer products that they feel they can make money on and that’s it. If the requirements do not accomodate them than its not thier problem.

Completely the opposite.

You are clearly unable to see where the real issue lies. The legal side of the procurement process ‘demands’ that a competitive tender process be followed.

No it is YOU who does not see. A ‘competative tender’ mearly means that the contract must be open to bid by competing offers. It does NOT mean that the tender must accomodate noncompetative offers.

That CAN only happen if the specification for that competition allows two products to compete.

No, it is the resposibility of the bidder to offer a competative product, NOT for the agency to make its requirements/criteria such that anything any bidder wishes to offer is competative.

As one of the KPP was for the airframe to be a current production one then certain constraints were imposed on who could or could not compete. Airbus rightly made a call as to what it was prepared to offer (and hence invest a not inconsiderable amount of money) as its response to this. It chose for whatever reasons to offer the A330, not the A310 (out of production) nor an A300 variant. Airbus had no responsiblity to take part with a product it had evaluated would loose….

The A300 WAS in production & there is/was sufficient commonality between the A300 & A310 that the A310 could have realistically be offered. And BOTH the A300 & A310 would have be more competative than the A330. Airbus offered the KC-330. The KC-330 was found to be noncompetative. The requirement for ‘competative tender’ was thus satisfied. That Airbus failed to offer a competative product is not the fault of the agency & it is (normally) NOT the responsibility of the agency to alter its requirements/criteria to make a noncompetative offer competative.

So the legal problem faced was one that if Airbus did not submit NO tankers would be purchased as the subsequent legal problems would have tied it all up for years. Therefore the ONLY route was to widen the scope of the spec in order to allow a competition.

There is no legal problem. A ‘competative tender’ mearly means that the contract must be open to bid by competing offers. It does NOT mean that the tender must accomodate noncompetative offers.

Please read what is written. The lease deal price was fair. The prices quoted in the competition are ones that both Airbus and Boeing knew would withstand examination, however without it then the game would have been different.

No you need to read what is written. The ‘claim’ is that Boeing was cheating & that the tanker lease was cancelled because of it. How do you cheat with a fair price?

Reading comprehension seems to be your greatest weakness….I specifically stated the lease was cancelled for other reasons.

That is NOT what you had stated earlier…

Correct, but it charges what it feels it can get away with. A different matter altogether.

But it is NOT going to get away with an unfair price.

Sadly your ignorance is proven by this view.

No, I am not the one ignorant here.

Wow, talk about ignorance. You demonstrate that you have zero grasp of the real issue. The contractor has zero responsiblity to do anything until it choses to be a part of something. It choses to be a part if it sees how it can win and make money….

Good GOD man! By making an offer it has chosen to take part. The contractor wins & makes money by making the most competative offer.

It is critical.. but no more or less than other aspects…

:rolleyes:

I would suggest that from this statement you have not understood how these specs are created. The USAF knew that it would not get a ‘bespoke’ tanker…so knowing that and identifying an existing airframe that ‘fit’ its mission requirements is the basic building block of this requirement. This is the most effective and reliable way of creating a credible spec. The disadvantage is that there is a risk that the spec is too tightly focussed to permit competition to ensure ‘fairness’…

I suggest you educate yourself. The original USAF requirements were NOT created around ANY existing airframe BUT it was abundantly clear which of the available airframes which best met/fit the requirements.

Incorrect. A ‘competitive tender’ means having a specification that permtis two or more products offered by potential suppliers to compete equally.

It is you who are incorrect. THINK ABOUT IT! You are saying that if Boeing decided it wanted to offer a KC-747 that the agency would be forced to alter its requirements for a medium KC-135 replacement tanker to make the largest commercial airframe in production at the time competative. Of if Boeing wanted to offer a KC-737 that the agency would be forced to alter its requirements for a medium KC-135 replacement tanker to make a tanker with a fuel capacity of less than 75,000 lbs competative.

The original spec was too restrictive and therefore by definition excluded competition.

No, the 767 could meet all the original requirements but it was not felt that a KC-767 that met all the requirements could not be realistically developed in time &/or at low enough risk &/or low enough cost to convince Cogress to release funds SIX YEARS earlier than what had been mapped out.

And where is the problem with a commercial concern making a commercial decision to not propose something it felt would not win. Just to ‘take part’?
Boeing and EADS are aimed at making money, no more no less. So EADS made a commercial choice to not invest in a product they evaluated as ‘not a winner’…So they made a rational call not to play.

No, Airbus/EADS made the choice to ‘play’ with the A330. Airbus/EADS took the chance that the larger/heavier A330 would trump the 767-200ER (which it felt the A300/A310 would not be competative).

The issue is then no competition can occur, therefore no purchase and the USAF is left with a problem. So the only way to unlock this is to enusrre the spec allows commercial concerns to make commercially viable proposals. Its not rocket science and its not difficult to see how and why this is the legal requirement set.

A competition DID occur. Airbus/EADS was given the change to make a competative offer & failed. The A330 was found noncompetative. End of ‘competative tender’.

See above…

Again, ‘competative tender’ mearly means that the contract must be open to bid by competing offers. It does NOT mean that the tender must accomodate noncompetative offers.

No the contractor has no responsibility at all. If they do not want to play they do not….It is the responsiblity of the requireer of services to ensure their demands fit the legal frame work.

The contractor IS chosing to ‘play’ by making an offer.

Even IF only one contractor choses to ‘play’ the requirements for a ‘competative tender’ is met by the contract being being offered for bid.

The one which understands the real issues.

Sorry, that does not answer my question.

So wrong it sad. The ONLY responsibilty is to ensure that the choice of product you spend somebody else’s money one is legal. You have two choices :
1) Single source and have somebody challenge you, resulting in you not receiving the goods.
2) Modify your requirements set in order to permit competition

Wrong. If the a contractor makes a noncompetative offer you are perfectly within your legal rights to reject it.

I disagree. The USAF based its specification on a known product. Had it really sent out a ‘requirements based spec. it would have permitted bespoke airframes….not the ‘based on current production’ clause.

Go right on disagreeing with reality all you want. The USAF did NOT base its requirements on a known product.

This is getting boring. The contractors have no responsibiltiy to do anything, even take part if they do not feel it is to their advantage. They will not submit a product that they evalute as being a ‘loser’.. so they will not bother. Free markets and all that…

So the responsiblity of enabling a ‘fair competition’ is that of the person setting it up…

Yes, your continued ignorance in the face of fact is boring.

By making a bid, the contractor is taking part. In making a bid the contractor is resposible to make a competative offer. It is the agency which selcts the winner/loser, not the contractors. If an offer is noncompetative, the egency (normally) does NOT have to alter its requirements/criteria to accomodate the noncompetative offer – it has the right to select that competative competing offer. ACTUALLY, the agency has the legal right to select what ever offer it want – it just has to justify its selection. And only one offer being competative sure make selecting it easily justifiable.

No you stay stuck in this mistaken view that military procurement is a technical exercise.. its is solely political. The ONLY reason there is military procurement is to serve political aims. That is reality.

No that is NOT reality.

With that in mind then politics will always play a part, its importance varies from project to project, so for example the F-35 competition was biased towards technology as the product was all cutting edge stuff… this one where the technological aspect is relatively minor politics plays the major role.

You just contradicted yourself.

So where does all that leave us…
1) The lease spec was the ‘best one’ in that it permitted competition and evalution to occur in a clear manner. The lease deal foundered not on technical aspects but on the manner of attribution.
2) The revised spec was written in such a manner as to prevent two products to compete for the contract (based on the evaluation of one of the only two realistic contractors).
3) When this was made clear to the ‘requireer’ of products they realised that in order to have a legally accpetable competitive tender they needed to have two products submitted. One contractor had said they would not submit with the original spec, so that had to be altered in order to have a competition.
4) Revised competition evaluation was not carried out in accordance with initial criteria and the changes were not robustly established. Boeing legitimately challenges the result and order is cancelled.
5) USAF still uses KC-135 tankers a decade later…..
6) USAF now has to wait a few more years for its new tankers and the chances are that it will get one tanker type to replace its mixed fleet and in lower numbers than its ‘wants’….because of the new politicla climate in DC and the global financial situation.

1) & 2) The only ‘revised’ tanker lease requirement/criteria was the change from leasing 100 tankers to leasing 20 tankers & procuring up to 80 more (intended to nullify concerns of the cost of leasing).

3) It had nothing to do with “legally accepetable competitive tender”. THAT had already been satisfied. But Congress in its infinate wisdom thought it could fix the problems of the tanker lease by demanding a new competition. The political ramifications of such then made it impossible for the agency to exercise its legal right to reject a noncompetative offer.

4) No, the KC-X solicitation was not carried out in accordance with its own requirement/criteria.

5) And will for decades to come.

6) No, the length of time it is planned/expected to take to recapitalize the entire tanker fleet all but guarantees a mixed fleet of three different airframes.

nice try

but no, the 767 could NOT meet them

why do you think Boeing created the high-cost/high-risk 767AT?

because they had NO CHOICE when the specs were finally reverted to what the AF originally wanted

if the 767 could have met the specs, they had ZERO reason to develop the AT

but the 767 had “minor” problems, like not being at least as capable as the KC-135R in fuel offload at distance

No matter how many time you repeat those lies to try & rewrite history it does not change the truth.

The 767 COULD & would have meet all requirements just as the USAF/DOD said it would. It would not have been chose otherwise.

The KC-767AT is neither high cost nor high risk and was ‘created’ specifically to beat the KC-30 for the the KC-X. The KC-767AT is much like what the full spec/capability KC-767 would have looked like had the previous plan to lease tankers in order to kick start the process & get new tankers six years earlier than the pre-9/11/01 roadmap.

The requirements/criteria were only ‘reverted back’ to what the USAF originally wanted for the 1st draft KC-X RFP, even then many new requirements/criteria where added. But that did not last wrong as Airbus/EADS knew it could not win with such requirements/criteria & threated not to compete. So in order to have another competition, the requirements/criteria were altered to accomodate the noncompetative KC-30.

That the KC-767AT met or exceed all the key requirements (& met many more non-key requirements than the KC-30 & was found superior in more/higher priority requirements), which were MORE stringent than the original USAF requirements, PROVES conclusively that the 767 could indeed meet all the USAF requirements.

The only “problem” the 767 had at the time of the tanker lease was that it was not believed that a full spec/capability KC-767 could be ready quickly & ‘inexpensively’ enough to convince Congress to go along with the accellerated tanker recapitalization plan.

***

read this

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html

Why? Who hasn’t read that piece of trash?

Wait I know. You think, like most evetything you post about the subject, that if you repeat the lies enough times, enough people will be fooled into believing they are the truth.

and the 767 couldn’t meet them so Boeing rewrote the requirements to ‘tailor’ them to the 767

No, the 767 COULD meet them but with the events of 9/11/01 the tanker recapitalization plan was revised. In order to kick-start tanker recapitalization (& retire the KC-135E earlier), the new USAF/DOD plan was to lease 100 tankers so as to receive the 1st new tankers in 2006 rather than the previously planned 2012 while a full spec/capability tanker was developed for procurement in later batches.