sekantFact of the matter is, if no company seem to have cancelled order at this stage (except those that went bust obviously), several companies have already asked for deliveries to be postponed a couple of years down the line. Don’t know about Boeing, but several airlines have already made such requests to Airbus.
sekantI realize that its just an internet message board, and it is a lot of fun to research the various aspects that go into fighter/tactical performance. But aren’t a lot of the arguments being made kind of ridiculous? Some of the claims in recent threads have strained credulity.
To my mind the key factors affecting the true performance in a war not just technical capability of the airplane, but also:
-Pilot training
-Maintenance/reliability of planes and missiles
-Adequate support/technicians/fuel/parts/basing
-AWACS/satellite/sensor support
-Sufficient numbers of aircraft/force concentration
-Aerial refueling, and all that support that IT requiresFor example, by many measures the Super Hornet can be bested by other extant fighters. But when considered in terms consonant with the six items listed above, I believe it is safe to say that it is 1)the most capable carrier fighter in the world, and 2) sufficiently capable of putting up one hell of a fight against many land based air forces. And I’m not saying that as a SH fanboy, just trying to cite an example.
Many countries can claim a technological achievement. How many can factually claim to be able to field those technologies effectively WRT the above listed six items?
Can’t really agree with all that. If the argument is that the SH is more potent than any other aircraf because when it is deployed by the US, it is backed by all those assets mentionned (awacs, air refuelling, satellite/sensor support, force concentration), I believe it is fairly obvious.
But the fact is that in many cases those support system do not come into play and what you have to do is go back to is the intrinsic value of the plane. If you take the Brazilian tender, all that support gear do not come (or hardly) into play and what you need to figure is how the plane would behave against the Su-27 irrespective of other factors. In fact in such cases, you must even try to figure out to what extent the offered planes can fulfil additional roles considering the absence of the aformentionned assets (i.e. buddy/buddy refueling, mini-awacs….). These same considerations apply to a large extent to many other cases, such as the Indian competition.
sekantOk,
If the koreans rate the crafts, they should rate the hole system?
or?
Sorry, this cracked me up. This discussion is going down the drain, turning scatological.
sekantBest depends on the company you are gonna take, the class you’re gonna fly in, whether you travel alone or with someone (A330 = 2-4-2 in eco, B777 = 3-3-3), etc. That matters much more than the aircraft itself.
sekantGive over…:D We all know how “ethical” British companies have been in the past.;) It’s just the fact that we didn’t actively help the aggresors against our next door neighbours – much as I suspect France would hope we would start shipping to Germany if that age old conflict was ever resurrected.;)
As for Blair, do you really believe anybody in the UK liked the smarmy so and so. Worst thing to happen to the UK for years.:(
I don’t know what you are blattering about. France, West Germany, the UK (lynx helicopters) all had ongoing military contracts with Argentina as of 1982 (exports to Argentina amounted to more than 35 % of Germany military exportsat the time). All military trade with Argentina was suspended following an EC decision to that effect days after the invasion of the Falklands. France stopped the delivery of exocets (five had been delivered), stopped technical cooperation with Argentina (that had to figure out how to use the exocet) and even decided to suspend the delivery of exocets to Peru for fear that they could end up in Argentina.
So you may want to explain to me in what way we “actively helped the agressors”. And I am expecting facts, not hearsay.
sekantI heard an unconfirmed story that a Swiss firm had to quit supplying JDAM parts because of the Iraq war. It took Boeing months to find and for a U.S. company to get parts into production. True?
1) Switzerland is a neutral country. Owing to this status, it is legally bound by international law to refrain from assisting any party to an international armed conflict, be it in an active (troops) or material way. This is why in a situation like the Iraqi conflict all exports of weapons to the US or Iraq were suspended by the Swiss government (i.e. it is not a company decision). The decision was rescinded soon after major combat operations (as you like to call it) were over.
2) France, UK, Germany…. are not bound by such legal norms. They are also not totally stupid and know full well that to halt military shipments to the US for political reasons would amount to shoting one’s own foot. Fact of the matter, French exports of military products to the US were not halted during the Iraqi operations, even though some in the US seemed to think they were at war with the French.
3) I have to refrain from rolling on the ground with laughter when I hear our anglo-saxon friends stress that their policy on exports of military goods is ethical whereas ours is not. I supose you took the “ethical foreign policy” of smarmy Blair for reality. Reality check people, yours is as driven by real politics and economic interests as ours.
sekantThen leave me alone and quit responding. If I am so bad, why would you waste time replying? After all, it’s not like you ever respond to a difficult argument regarding the tankers, like the 84,000 lbs. Instead, you obsess about adjectives to describe me.
Stop trolling and peddling factually unfounded, baseless and false information about my country and I will. Keep peddling facts unrelated to the issue and disparaging and you will be met with rebuttal and scorn. Apparently, you believe that you can say such stupid things as that the deal should not be granted to the French because it does not import foreign cars or because its population is 25 % muslim (both ludicrous statements) and expect that no one will reply to you!!? No one is spouting that sort of crap on the US on this thread, so dont expect to be able to do that regarding Europe and get away scott free.
sekantAren’t you the same person? You seem to be. I guess only the mods know for sure.
Lets address something concrete: NEITHER of you has ever dealt with the 84,000 lbs.
Boeing hires people to build airplanes. Airbus only builds planes so they can hire people.
More than a troll, not adjective to qualify you. Swerve is a Brit. I am French. But you cant even process basic facts.
sekantI never said they weren’t sold. I said count the numbers. Would the protectionist French ever stand for Toyota to essentially take over the market, as they are doing in the U.S?
You’ll have to do better than this…not even really a good try, but at least you haven’t resorted to name calling (yet).
You keep trolling day in, day out and then complain that you are not shown respect!!! Well, you’re a troll and only deserve to be treated as such.
The French are protectionists and its car markets proves it?? For your information, since as usual you rely on clichés rather than fact, the reality is as follows:
– French market: national cars 51 %, imports 49 %
– US market: national cars 49 %, foreign cars 51 %
Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to acknowledge that for the tenth time you have been shown that your underlying fact are simply baseless.
By bringing this up, you seem to imply, “and now the entire U.S. has to pay!”
EVERYONE has to pay for the prejeducies of a two people?
The “fix” is to magically change the needs of the USAF, and buy an airplane that is too big from
1) a government owned/controlled entity, that
2) does not support U.S. foreign policy, and
3) is far from suspicion regarding it’s own activities.
No problem with that argument if you agree that Europeans never again buy a Boeing product because
1) the US government does not support European, French, German, Spanish… foreign policy
2) Boeing is a corrupt entity (as proven by the tanker episode)
3) Boeing has congress in its pocket
….
Troll one day, troll always.
sekantTonight a big ammo storage near the north-eastern Ukrainian town of Charkov exploded.
Wondering …
Several such depots have exploded over the past few years in Ukraine. Ukraine is loaded with such depots dating back from the Soviet era (i.e. some type of forward depot). Munitions have past their sell-by date and have become unstable. There are several multilateral programmes currently underway (within the NATO/PFP or OSCE frameworks) to assist Ukraine in getting rid of these surplus stocks of munitions.
sekantI never said, nor implied that the GAO overturns decision. :rolleyes:
And I have pointed out more than once that the GAO’s authority is limited.
But isn’t amazing how when the GAO sustains a protest that the decision IS overturned (or at least put on hold)….
Im afraid that we have a credibility issue here. Here is exactly what you posted to back you point (I quote): “…But the real shock was in the unusually harsh language used by the Government Accountability Office in overturning that decision.” Apparently, you can state one thing and its opposite two posts apart. And expect to be taken seriously.
YES IT DID! It ruled that the agency did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. .
What the GAO report said was that the USAF gave added points to the NG offer for exceeding some requirements and what Boeing offered, when the RPF did not foresee that added points would be granted for exceeding requirements. The GAO said that the process was not respected. It did not challenge the fact that the 330 was superior or that the USAF could legitimately be interested in that greater capacity.
I didn’t say the USAF created an alternate reality to buy a larger aircraft for the sake of buying a larger aircraft. It created an alternate reality where an otherwise noncompetative larger tanker appeared competative for the sake of having a Congress mandated competition since the only “competition” was a noncompetetive larger aircraft..
Here again, you make no sense whatsoever. The competition was there, with two companies submitting proposals after the publication of a RPF. The USAF could then have picked the 767 and could have said to NG that unfortunately its plane was too big. If the USAF believed that the 767 was better meeting its needs, it would have selected the 767 proposal without second thougts, and not selected the 330 when they knew that this would create some political problems.
As I said, what you are arguing is that the USAF decided to award a major contract to procure an equipment that do not meet its needs and with which they’ll be stuck for the next 30 years, and this for no real reasons. This is beyond ludicrous, especially when you say that they did so to please congress, when congress is strongly in favour of the Boeing bid.
LOL…
Taken by the depth of your argumentation. I surrender to your point.
The USAF has done NOTHING, its selection authority was taken away from it.
But that changes have been made is not the issue, the GAO even recommended that some changes be made. The issue is that some changes (made not by the USAF but by Under Secretary Young) alters the solicitation to something CONTRADICTORY to previous solicitations & that there is no justification for said changes (other than an appearant preference towards the offer with a larger aircraft) & that is in fact what the USAF had said it did NOT want.
As I said, you are cherrypicking the GAO report to support your point. You hail the report, but cry foul when the USAF acts according to the report. The GAO report states that the USAF should amend the sollicitation if it believes that it will ensure that its needs are better met. The USAF does just that. You whine, Boeing whine…
sekantTick the box for option of off airport delivery! Suggest you look at Air Transat.
Air Transat, particularly if you are interested in a stop over mid-atlantic.
sekantActually it is MORE than appearant that EADS/KC-30 supporters haven’t read the GAO report (&/or other comments it has made) &/or misinterpreting (either deliberately &/or through ingorance) it.
To quote General John Handy, USAF (Ret.) again…
Most of us in the Air Force mobility community were a bit surprised by the decision to buy the quite large Airbus-330 tanker instead of the smaller Boeing 767 tanker. But the real shock was in the unusually harsh language used by the Government Accountability Office in overturning that decision. It was the harshest language used to overturn an action by the Air Force that I have read in my entire career. .
Funny, you claim to understand the GAO process as opposed to those who do not support your viewpoint, yet you do not seem to even understand that the GAO does not overturn a decision and does not have the capacity to do so. So much for your superior understanding.
No, the selection was based on exaggerating the KC-30s supposed (yet unproven & unjustified and NOT REQUESTED/REQUIRED) strengths while ignoring its weaknesses (which are MUCH more important). The GAO COULDN’T rule on the merits of the respective offers!
And sorry, but the KC-767AT not only meat ALL key requirements (the USAF & NG/EADS failed to justify the determination that the KC-30 did) but EXCEEDED many of them, including those which EADS/KC-30 supporters feel are so great about the KC-30, met more non-key requirements AND was found to have fewer weaknesses.
1) Only in an alternate reality created to make the KC-30 appear competative…
2) The GAO COULDN’T question this conclusion. But what it COULD do & did do was rule that the conclusion was not consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
Thank you for repeating exactly what I said. The GAO did not question the fact that the USAF concluded that the KC-30 was much more competitive than the 767 and on balance an aircraft that better meets its needs (The GAO simply said that Airbus was given added points because it surpassed some key requirements stated in the RPF and Boeing was not made aware of that fact).
And the USAF didn’t create an alternative reality to buy a larger aircraft for the sake of buying a larger aircraft. The conclusion that the 330 was more competitive was based on a the USAF assessing how tankers are and will be used, what its missions are and what type of refuelling it requires. The result was that the 330 was deemed to better meet the needs of the USAF than the 767. This fact was not based on what you or a retiree think the USAF needs are or will be – it was based on a thorough evaluation by the USAF itself.
But the USAF didn’t & isn’t going to reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision…
Under Secretary John Young (of the DOD, not USAF) has altered the requirements once again (even after they have already been altered so that the KC-30 could be appear competative). So what Mr. young is asking for in 2008 IS NOT what the USAF asked for in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 OR 2007.
I would be MORE than happy to go through the GOA ruling point-by-point/statement-by-statement but your comments here make it clear doing so would be a waste of time since you ignor most of it & hark on what it did not say.
Your comments make clear that you can hardly read. The GAO report stated that the USAF could alter the specifications of the RPF it it deemed necessarily to ensure that its needs are met. The USAF just did that with some Boeing whining as a result.
sekantApparently, all the ‘Boeing or else’ crowd has either not read the GAO reports or simply decided to misinterpret it.
The USAF decision to grant the contract to the A330 was based on the conclusion that the A330 offered superior performance. It was based on the fact that the A330 was exceeding by far the requirements when Boeing was simply meeting them. This fact was not challenged by the GAO report. What the GAO report found in this regard was that there was a discrepancy between what was asked in the RPF and the criterion effectively used. I quote the GAO report: “we found that a key discriminator relied upon by the Air Force in its selection of Northrop Grumman’s proposal for award was not consistent with the terms of the solicitation…. the Air Force credited Northrop Grumman for proposing to exceed a solicitation key performance parameter objective for fuel offload versus unrefueled range to a greater extent than Boeing proposed, but the solicitation plainly provided that no consideration would be given for proposing to exceed key performance parameter objectives.” Contrary to what posters above say: 1) The 330 was found to be a more potent aircraft than the 767 by the USAF, 2) the GAO did not question this conclusion.
The Boeing crowd is also dishonest in cherry picking elements of the GAO reports for its propaganda campaign. They lambast the USAF for altering the RPF, for introducing new requirements in this document, when the GAo report stated in its recommandations: “GAO recommends that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision. If the Air Force believes that the solicitation does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors.”
sekantCould not a “fly off” of sorts be held with one of the KC-30 tankers Australia just purchased against one of the KC-767’s that Italy or Japan has? Are these two planes significantly different in specification than what the RFP here is asking for?
Would that not be the easiest way to see in the real world which of the two planes best mets the requirement?
No. The 767 tankers provided to Italy and Japan are based on the 767-200ER, while that proposed to the USAF is based on the (still in development) 767-200 LRF (Long range freighter).
I would also add that you do not need to test aircrafts to figure out their ground imprint, runway need or fuel output. They are all here on paper. What is in question is not whether what manufacurers say is correct, but to figure out which better meets the requirements on the basis of the information provided.
Sign In
