Military Aviation > Air Forces

The Tanker Joke - round... 4, I think?

<< < (14/14)

so you think the soap opera will become a black comedy?

--- Quote ---"missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets"

--- End quote ---

Ok, so no raked wingtips either? I guess KC-X is tactical tanking, not strategic, that will be left to the KC-10/KC-Y. Fine. But what happened to the secondary cargo role? Surely this decision based on the tanker mission, compromises its performance/efficiency in the cargo role.

I think this decision was just a way to decrease the airframe cost a bit more, as in terms of fuel efficiency they were already beating Airbus anyway.

--- Quote ---fixed-price
--- End quote ---

Yeah I grinned when I saw comments on the web implying that "fixed-price" would mean no cost overruns.

It's merely a contract type different than cost reimbursement or cost-plus. It does not mean the final price is carved in stone, it's mostly always still adjustable. Even the "firm fixed-price" contracts can mean the price will be redetermined at the end, or have adjustable or cost reimbursement components in them. Just think of price of materials for starters and how that affects the most basic building contracts.

In short, the term "fixed-price" doesn't mean sh** other than some price [formula] has been determined instead of paying for all costs, or costs plus fixed fee (fixed profit).

I think us mere mortals should know this.

It seems pretty firm, if "any cost overrun" is really ANY cost. Still subject to economic price adjustment I would imagine though.

Us mortals just need to accept it as a better option than cost-plus. You really can't argue without having access and full understanding of the total contract, and expert knowledge of the industry.

If you think a price carved in stone is possible for this kind of procurement, you really have to think again. You can dream up a risk-free contract for the government, whether that's still acceptable to the contractor is the question and even then you may end up paying too much as the economy never stands still.

Hehe, almost missed it due to Libya news, but the WTO ruled on Boeing and it looks like Boeing really shot itself in the foot by starting their legal battle with Airbus, upset about European state loans. The WTO determined the subsidies Boeing received ($5 B) and is to receive ($2 B) are illegal.

I don't think Washington will act to change anything about the subsidies. So Boeing gets "free" R&D and got the tanker project. Hopefully Boeing will now keep its big PR mouth shut when it comes to Airbus.

It's a difficult enough decision in itself, all sizegenetics the lobbying doesn't help anyone... but well, gotta love democracy, right..


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version