MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Air Forces => Topic started by: Webmaster on April 22, 2010, 02:56:23 PM
-
I don't know if you have been following the news, but the tanker joke (expression courtesy of shawn A) is back on. Although it is becoming more of a Boeing Joke...
New RFP, requirements allegedly favoring a smaller tanker, ie Boeing's 767. First EADS/NG declined to bid for the contract, meaning Boeing would be the sole contender. Ultimately, they've convinced EADS to give it another go. But Northrop Grumman gave up, so EADS North America will either find another partner or go at it alone. Funny, that probably will mean even more work for Europe.
BUT, here it comes again, Boeing already started to complain again! We can argue for a long time about which bid is better, which company is better, or which is more "fair trade". But one thing is for sure imho, Boeing is the biggest child, no argument there.
company announced:
"From the outset, Boeing has been 100 percent focused on responding to the needs of our Air Force customer and preparing a competitive proposal. Only Boeing can produce a tanker that will meet the Air Force's 372 requirements and promise delivery of a combat-ready, safe and survivable tanker that is the most capable for the warfighter, the lowest cost for the taxpayer, and backed by Boeing's proven U.S. work force. We are confident in the superior value and capabilities of our NewGen Tanker and intend to present a compelling case for it in our proposal."
Gimme a break!
Ray Stephanson, mayor of Everett, where Boeing's 767 jet is built, said he's dismayed at EADS' return to the contest.
“Are they willing to submit a bid that's substantially under the cost to produce it?†he asked.
Boeing should know as well as or even more so than others that the real money will be earned on support.
And here come the senators!
“For years, Airbus has gone to any length to gain U.S. market share and undercut American workers. ... Whether it's extending deadlines, threatening to drop out if the rules aren't changed in their favor, or receiving billions in illegal, trade-distorting subsidies, no ploy is spared,†Sen. Patty Murray from Washington state said.
Analyst Hamilton thinks Boeing and its supporters are on slippery ground with the subsidy argument, given that Boeing may well lose a counter complaint against it brought by Airbus.
The pure US-worker, unsupported Boeing company, it's great isn't it... phhfeww.
“Why not just shut up and go ahead and bid?†Hamilton said.
Amen!
Article: http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20100421/BIZ/704219874/0/ETPZoneLT
-
Is there a reason the 787 airframe is not being considered?
-
Probably will take longer and cost more... more risk for Boeing / won't be done on time. They've got the 767 line set up already, it's flying as tanker, to militairize and convert them to tankers will cost enough plus they've alrdy got a challenging road ahead of them with this new boom.
But good question, maybe other reasons as well. I mean the 787 has really light composites right... but are they up to military spec?
Also it makes business sense... the airline market wants the 787, so what money can you still make from the previous designs. I guess Executive VIPs + Maritime Patrol were the chosen options for 737, and 767 as tanker? Obviously it already has been tanker for before the 787 was "invented". So...
I've also got another question, now the requirements are more in favor of a smaller tanker than the 330... why not offer the 310, like the Luftwaffe ones?
-
Hi Niels,
I've been away for a few days-took a dirigible ride.
About the Military specworthyness of the -87, didn't it already need some wing root redesign to add strength?
With EADS deciding to rebid all alone, I fear more BS from the loser in any competition, plus the added resentment some Americans will have about the "foreign" product.
The joke couldn't possibly get any more stale, but I fear the worst.
We should have had a new tanker flying years ago.
-
BUT WAIT!, THERE'S MORE!!
A group of duly-elected cretins are now proposing to unilaterally penalize the EADS bid by about $5 million per aircraft.
SURPRISINGLY ;) ,these representatives are from states with significant amounts of Boeing work.
We may have the biggest guns in the OK corral, but we're just using them to shoot ourselves in the foot!
-
Whoop, there it is.
It's a difficult enough decision in itself, all the lobbying doesn't help anyone... but well, gotta love democracy, right... :'(
-
Actually, I don't think it's a difficult decision at all. Simply shuck the politics, and choose the best machine for the job.
America has developed an OCD mentality, endlessly nitpicking over petty, irrelevant issues, unable to commit to a decision.
It doesn't even matter if the "wrong" tanker is chosen - look what we do with 707's and DC-10's--WE MAKE THEM WORK!
If we could just make a decision, at least we would have something to improve!
Darleen Druyun should be up before a firing squad for the crap she caused!
-
The bell hasn't rung to end round 4, so the contenders are still slugging away!
The May 17th issue of AW&ST has 2 advertisements for the tanker opponents-- Boeing's is on the centerspread on heavier paper stock than the rest of the magazine, with two curious statements, one is "combat ready" wow, silly me thought that only Japan and Italy have 767 tankers ready to go. I believe those tankers have some significant differences than what Boeing is still calling the KC-X in the ad (as if they have not yet decided which airframe to use) The other hilarious statement is "superior combat maneuverability for greater survivability"--There is a word to describe a tanker that has to have "superior maneuverability" during combat to survive--That word is TOAST!
I've been to Seattle, and actually drunk the water at Boeing field, and I'm not delusional, so there must be another explanation.
EADS' ad is several pages prior to Boeing's and has a header in very large print that says "GET REAL"
But why are there even ads in a magazine? Do these companies really think that an ad will sway a decision-maker's final decision?
I'm still laughing sadly.
Shawn A.
-
Hey Shawn can you list all the contenders for me. I haven't been following it much. Thanks.
-
The bell hasn't rung to end round 4, so the contenders are still slugging away!
The May 17th issue of AW&ST has 2 advertisements for the tanker opponents-- Boeing's is on the centerspread on heavier paper stock than the rest of the magazine, with two curious statements, one is "combat ready" wow, silly me thought that only Japan and Italy have 767 tankers ready to go. I believe those tankers have some significant differences than what Boeing is still calling the KC-X in the ad (as if they have not yet decided which airframe to use) The other hilarious statement is "superior combat maneuverability for greater survivability"--There is a word to describe a tanker that has to have "superior maneuverability" during combat to survive--That word is TOAST!
I've been to Seattle, and actually drunk the water at Boeing field, and I'm not delusional, so there must be another explanation.
EADS' ad is several pages prior to Boeing's and has a header in very large print that says "GET REAL"
But why are there even ads in a magazine? Do these companies really think that an ad will sway a decision-maker's final decision?
I'm still laughing sadly.
Shawn A.
I guess advertising in mags does help to get that lobby going... In the Air Forces Monthly, there's both an ad and a feature from Omega Tanker Service... which kinda promote their low cost compared to the FSTA Future Air Tanker deal that's now in place for the RAF, as the editor points out in his editorial. Quite effective marketing, I'd say.
"GET REAL" that's great! However if EADS really "got real", they wouldn't be competing in this lost match, that's how I feel about it. Ah well, I suppose it's all about keeping the DOD's goodwill up for future sales.
But to have both EADS and Boeing ads in the same mag, LOL, that's great. Too bad the EADS ad wasn't just after the Boeing ad. Maybe Boeing reworked some old ad, because it's pretty set on the 767 "NextGen" now, seen ads for it, but I suppose it's because the contest is still called KC-X.
You are right, there's still much in the design that isn't ready yet. And I don't know, but those Italian tankers had a huge delay, I'm not even sure they are in active service yet? Nevertheless, I think Boeing will pull it off if they win. Actually I think for neither design it has much to do with readiness... both need a lot of work. But I guess Boeing means that they've got a plant set up for the 767, while EADS will be setting up a new facility in Alabama.
By the way, RAAF A330 tanker first delivery is expected to be soon.
Hey Shawn can you list all the contenders for me. I haven't been following it much. Thanks.
There's still only the two.
But Northrop Grumman refused to bid, so EADS-Airbus will probably going at it alone. NG was pretty pissed that by winning the previous contest, their price became public, while Boeing's price was not revealed. EADS got 60 days extension to reorganise their bid, deadline is now somewhere in early July. It's still A330 vs 767, but the designs will be somewhat different. Boeing already revealed details on their NextGen, basically it has some more 777/787 parts in. Last time I checked (1-2 weeks ago), there was no news about changes from Airbus yet.
The news about the Russian Il-96 bid turned out to be false, as I thought so. It was "copied" by about every aviation news website, really bad.
-
Ow yeah, forgot to mention, there's this talk again about imposing a penalty cost factor on the EADS bid for "illegal" subsidies. But I can't find whether a) the bill has been proposed yet, and b) when congress will vote on it or the outcome if it's already passed. Anyone?
Also, I think that maneuvrability claim has something to do with the FCS... I can't remember exactly, I think the new system doesn't have (the same) computer imposed limits as you'd get on a normal FBW airliner.
Boeing is desperate it seems, they are now bringing up concerns about the possibility of EU boycotting supplies to the US, that Washington has much better leverage over Boeing than over EADS-NA, and this: EADS dealing in Iran, http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2513729720100525?rpc=44
-
The article in the May 17th issue of AW&ST says "A bipartisan group of lawmakers from states with Boeing work is proposing a Fair Defense Competition Act that would require the Pentagon to apply penalties to EADS North America's latest bid for $35 billion worth of work building aerial refuelers for the US Air Force."
WOW!-- we finally got some of that "bipartisan" co-operation that everyone campaigned on last election!
The proposal was put together by Kansas representatives Senator Sam Brownback (...back, not nose?), and representative Tod Tiahrt, (both republicans--where's the bi-partisan-ness?)
Their claim is that "Airbus, owned by EADS, accepted about $5 billion in illegal subsidies for it's A330 product line"
Tiahrt, who evidently did the math, says a penalty of about $5 million per aircraft would be about right, based on the subsidy's value across a production run of 1,000 aircraft.
1,000 tankers to refuel 187 Raptors, and who knows how few Lightning II's? Back to math class for you, Tiahrt.
The article goes on to say they planned to attach their proposal to the defense authorization and/or the defense appropriations bills, and also states "It may be too late. A source selection is expected in November, and in recent years congress has been slow in passing annual spending bills" (Our congress has been slow!!?)
The FBW FCS is probably intended for more precise positioning maneuvers during refueling, but for "combat surviveability"?
I guess you're right about the magazine ads being aimed at lobbyists and others with influence, instead of decision makers.
Niels, do I just go to Milavia to get the specs on the contenders, and the specs on the KC-10?
Seems to me the new planes might barely exceed the capabilities of the KC-10, with maybe just their own fuel economy being better.
About the military spec-worthyness of the 787, there evidently was a redesign of something called "shear ties" in the aft fuselage because ties used to connect the fuselage frames to the skin started detaching from the skin after "several cold-hot cycles". Well, I guess that's what ground and flight test programs are for. Uh. can someone remind me what computer aided design (CAD) is for?
Forgive my sarcasm, it's my nature.
-
Niels, do I just go to Milavia to get the specs on the contenders, and the specs on the KC-10?
No, I haven't done the tankers, as apart from the refueling they are kinda boring aircraft. I have been gathering info on the history of IFR, but never got to writing something. Plus there's already some good out there:
For KC-10 specific: http://www.kc-10.net/
For factsheets on all heavies: http://www.theaviationzone.com/main/facts.asp
And last time I posted the news that Airbus had won, doing so by watching live coverage of the press announcement and writing my own story. Took a few good hours, only to see the decision being reversed several months later. Since then, I haven't bothered to report on this anymore, apart from here on the forum.
Seems to me the new planes might barely exceed the capabilities of the KC-10, with maybe just their own fuel economy being better
You're probably right, although iirc both boom 'flowrates' are higher? And yeah fuel economy.
But KC-X is for replacement of the KC-135E/R/T. There will be a KC-Y competition for the KC-10 replacement. Likely it will be the same plane as the one that gets the KC-X. KC-X is dual role, and at least for the A330 this means it will do all its tanking from its own wingtanks. I could imagine a fuel tank being fitted in the cargo hold to the same aircraft for KC-Y, thus making it better than the KC-10.
Still, I'd recommend the USAF to get some 'desert' DC-10s and convert them to 'stop-gap' tankers.
-
Yeah, I looked at a few sites last night, and the KC-10 seems to carry more offloadable fuel than even a 777 tanker would.
Offload rate for the-10 was put at 1100 gals. ger minute from the boom, and 470 gpm for the hose. Offload capacities were stated as much as 356,000 lbs! (can that be right?) a different site claimed 235,000 lbs at a range of 1500 nm.
I think the USAF specified 1200 gpm from the new boom.
The receiving aircraft must have certain limits on their intake rate.
The USAF chose the -330 once, but many blogs decried the choice based on ramp space considerations, booms over the battle, aircraft weight, length of available forward-base runways, and a few other things.
Makes no sense to me to choose the same tanker twice for the KC-X, and the KC-Y.
If the USAF decides to retire the C-5, then we'll need tankers with a lot of capacity to refuel C-17s on their way to overseas destinations.
Just let's make the damn decision, and start producing them!! Whatever the choice!
-
365,000 lb is the number on the airforce's fact sheet for max fuel load, so unless you want to offload it on the ground without running the engines, offload capability is not that, LOL.
There's also a small lobby going for a split buy, seems they've considered the idea without ever thinking about costs?
-
Yes, that figure (365,000 lbs.) seemed too good to be true. I like the idea of a split buy. Screw the cost (after all, I'm paying) and get the best, most capable equipment for defense until true peace breaks out! Then we can turn 'em back into airliners or freighters.
Shawn A.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, I love the idea as well. It's just not gonna happen. :(
-
There must be a nitrous oxide leak at my house, because I'm laughing uncontrollably, and it can't possibly be because of these two ads!
-
The magazines are really the ones that benefit from this the most with all those fullpage ads. I'm sure they're loving it.
-
Was browsing through 'auto-approved ads' which Google serves on my site and I noticed "AllAmericanTanker" ads (Boeing). LOL, so looks like I also profitted (if anyone clicked them).
-
So the joke never stops!
I'm getting really buffed out abs from all the laughter!
EADS is now bidding again, and the pentagon has put off the deadline for bids to accommodate them. another 60 days, to approximately July 10th!
How many other countries are laughing and learning over this idiocy?
What if the iranians and the chinese bid? will we extend the deadline?
Let's get this moronic (expletive deleted) over with and start producing a tanker!!
Shawn A
-
The Pentagon wants EADS to bid, otherwise Boeing will rip you off. Okok, it's the law, blabla.
So yes, it wouldn't be an issue in many countries. Because either they don't buy foreign if they have their own industry, or anything the air force wants gets ordered, or the terms/financing is so bad they are happy to have one option.
I don't know about learning and laughing... none are in a position to really do...
Learning... France maybe, how to hold a mock competition and select local product eventually without being called protectionist? They can't be laughing, at least not publicly, they fly Boeings but support Airbus, argh.
Laughing... Russia/China may be laughing with their competing factories (but all owned by the state, so it doesn't matter who wins), but they must be watching in envy, as they would want these aircraft.
Learning... UK... learning that they soon may need more full-time tankers, instead of lease, as the USAF won't be there to fuel them. That's no laughing matter.
Laughing... Iran... with their 707 and 747 tankers and parts under embargo, but supplied for the civil fleet? I guess they could be laughing at the fears over embargo. But even without tankers, the USAF is still no laughing matter, and there are plenty of bases around. USN will probably do, and they've got Boeing tankers in the form of SHornets.
Maybe Chavez is laughing, he loves to make fun of America. But FAV won't be laughing as they'll soon have to do it with Il-78s.
What if the iranians and the chinese bid? will we extend the deadline?
Bid with what? LOL. No, one bid = bad, two bids = fine and all you need.
I guess Americans want Boeing tankers. All this "best for the Warfighter" can be ignored, when do they ever get what they want? They'll learn to love it and never look back. Who cares if allies have better tankers, fighters/bombers win the war. It's like those An-124s being hired to carry the BlackHawks and Apaches to the fight, who cares as long as those choppers can be put into the fight.
And while Boeing is producing those tankers, Airbus will take-over the US cargo market... probably with planes produced in France, rather than Alabama. ;)
-
Like I said.... two is enough...
[...] U.S. Aerospace Inc, has joined forces with the state-owned Ukrainian aircraft builder Antonov.
It is thought that California-based U.S. Aerospace has asked the Pentagon for a 60-day extension to prepare a bid. It had been thought that Russian aircraft manufacturer United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) had been involved with an American partner but this was strenuously denied by UAC in March this year.
[...]
And...
[...]
The Pentagon says it is sticking to its 2 p.m. July 9 deadline for competitors to submit their KC-X proposals, despite the potential U.S. Aerospace bid.
[...]
-
Is somebody JOKING?
If not, what airframe would Antonov use? I can see a -225 with 3 booms and 4 hose-drogues refuelling an F-22, an F-15, an F-16, two Super Hornets, and two F-35Cs all at the same time!
sorry-I couldn't resist.
-
"Antonov and U.S. Aerospace, Inc. will bid three models for the KC-X program, the AN-124-KC, AN-122-KC, a twin-engine variant of the AN-124-100 with advanced engines, electronics and avionics, and AN-112-KC, an updated airframe designed specifically to meet the tanker program requirements."
The An-112-KC seems to be the most realistic contender, it's basically a An-70 with two turbofans. Russia/Ukraine recently came to an agreement to resume An-70 program. But there's still a lot of work to be done to have it with turbofans and as tanker.
Surely, they can't expect to win this, maybe some very risk-taking investors think. Nah, I'm thinking this US Aerospace thought this to be a perfect PR/Marketing tool. There's hardly any info available on the aircraft on their site. Bidding is not cheap, but you get so much media exposure / stock price probably went up? For Antonov it puts it back in the spotlight again, and I guess they thought what better way to promote our An-124 on the US market.
-
I agree with you that US Aerospace must be getting some OTHER benefits from this venture as their proposal has NO chance of ever winning. I'm not saying Antonov won't make a competent product but winning the proposal will never happen for so many more reasons.
-
Maybe it's seen by U.S. Aerospace as a "foot in the door" for the KC-Y, and KC-Z programs.
The -124 is HUGE,
Still laughing.
-
Well, bids are in... 4 months, and we'll know... 5 months and we'll have another round?
-
DING!!! Ladies and gentlemen, round 5 begins!
US Aerospace claims the Air Force delayed their messenger at the gate, gave him wrong directions to the office which was to receive the bid, and delayed him when he became lost, according to AW&ST and US Aerosp[ace
The proposal was about 5 minutes late. I wish the F-35 program was only 5minutes late!
A sharp attorney could claim that if the phrase "local time" was not used in stating the deadline, then sidereal time should apply, and the bid should be considered as being delivered on time.
Shawn A
-
Uh-- how'd the type get so damn big?
-
because the 36pt size DING wasn't closed by a [/size] endtag. I fixed it for ya.
hmm yeah deadline is deadline, but agreed that it should be considered, it would be ridiculous not to on something like that.
-
Well, a decision on the protest of U.S. Aerospace over the alleged "intentional delay" has been speeded up to 65 days over the usual 100 days, according to AW&ST.
For a low bid of 29 billion vs. bids of around 35 billion, this seems at least worth a look, as far as I'm concerned.
Robert Gates-- take note of the potential savings!! It's one of your main concerns, right?
-
Hold there, Shawn, you're confusing him. Doesn't he needs to have "real american" jobs, so he can cut personnel from the services.
Seriously though, that's quite a difference! Even when looking at it proportional.
-
Good one!
But seriously, folks, isn't Antonov's proposed aircraft even more "unreal" than Boeing's? A twin-jet AN-70?
-
You mean the aircraft? It's interesting, so I don't want to say it's unreal. I don't know yet, so few details, haven't researched well. But it's not like they're doing something completely different. It still is very conventional, existing tech, and all, right? I don't like to fall in this trap that because of the lack of progress and records of way-older aircraft serviced by conscripts, in other times, designed by a company that isn't the same as it was, in a system that's very different, that it can't be good. They'll have to deal with that though in PR, but they've got ammo thanks to the An-124.
But honestly, I should have more info before I can say anything, and even then who am I? So okay...
Antonov: They're finally moving on the An-70, they're building airliners, and they did the An-32, An-74, An-124... which are still selling today. US Aerospace, maybe just what Antonov needs... but I hardly know anything about US Aerospace, and their website... well, sorry guys, is crap.
You know them Shawn?
Seems like they were known as New Century Companies, Inc. and under that name acquired several precision engineering, aerostructure, and tooling companies. All the stuff needed to setup a line? And/or possibly redo Antonov's tooling? Then get a bunch of subcontractors, like Boeing, or just subcontract a company for the final assembly as well... or Ukraine... somewhere else overseas?
The risk seems more in the company, setting up shop and sorting out the supply chain, than in the aircraft's design...
So I think the bid is unreal...the aircraft may not, I can eventually see some low numbers going here and there, before EMBRAER gets in their way. But the thing is... investment. Probably won't be enough without the USAF order in. However, seeing that making the bid already got investments in... I can see why they're bidding. Boeing is slow, their business is slow, let's bid against them and get investments to survive/get strong, and then when they win, we'll be a better subcontractor than we are now? Antonov probably winning as well... hmm, yeah, maybe for these two, the bid has a good ROI, even without winning. For Boeing it will be money down the drain if they lost... EADS.. break-even?
-
It's late here, I'll think a bit more about this and get back to you after the Watsonville Fly-In tomorrow. I may get to take an aerobatic flight in a Christen Eagle tomorrow if we can dig up a parachute for me to use.
Shawn
-
Well, I finally got an unofficial comment from an Air Force tanker crewman. He said he'd prefer the Boeing based on size, and mission suitability, with the added comment that he'd been in both a -767, and a -330, and the Boeing felt "more solid".
Will someone (or some committee) just make the decision, so we can build the damn thing?
For the delay she started, Darleen Druyun should be in jail until the first one is built!
-
I think they just got confused more now with a president that wants "CHANGE". What's change, Airbus, or Boeing? See, confusing.
US Aerospace would have been a change, but they were 5 minutes late. A lot can change in 5 minutes.
Sorry, can't help myself joking about this...
-
Well, I finally got an unofficial comment from an Air Force tanker crewman. He said he'd prefer the Boeing based on size, and mission suitability, with the added comment that he'd been in both a -767, and a -330, and the Boeing felt "more solid".
But then again, I'd be very surprised if he'd said Airbus. Hmm, it's nice to hear his opinion, but when they say "best solution for the warfighter", they don't mean him, they probably mean some general on top who need to refuel and haul cargo (that's left by a shortage of C-17s) with these, plus the bean counters in uniform. Thanks for asking though.
"more solid" hmm, not sure what to make of that. I mean let's say MiG-29 vs F-16... I wouldn't want the more solid one. ;)
-
At an earlier show, when asked the same question, two crewmen on a -135 agreed with each other when one of them said, in effect, "we don't care, just as long as we get a new one soon".
Wow! How can I put this?....If given equality in avionics and weapon systems would you still prefer the lithe bedroom sexiness of the -16, or the practical in-the-kitchen cooking ability of the -29?
-
Exactly, that's the most important thing, get on with it!
Let's order 10 of each today, and see how they do. Just 20 birds, buy or lease, I think the added cost of small-number procurement and operating two types is offset by the lesser strain on the KC-135 fleet, so why not? Of course those 10 A330s will have to be built in France, as it's not viable to set up a line for so few. But I'd reckon it's a small price, and it's still quite some work for US suppliers. And whichever one doesn't eventually get taken on, can be easily sold.
Yup, F-16. At least, if I got my infrastructure sorted out and don't plan on pissing off the US.
-
Wow! I wonder if that's a workable concept. Would the bidders go for it? If so--let's include US Aerospace and Antonov, too!
-
According to Combat Aircraft magazine, US Aerospace has filed a protest with the US Government Accountability Office after being thrown out of the KC-X competition.
Hmmm... how seriously this protest will be taken is a good question.
We all know protests never cause any serious delays to a program ;)
-
Hmmm... how seriously this protest will be taken is a good question.
The GAO dismissed U.S. Aerospace’s claims that the Air Force intentionally delayed the messenger from entering Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. But the legal question of whether the bid was late and whether acceptance would “not unduly delay the procurement†remains open. The latter decisions are due Nov 5.
-
Well, it's November, shouldn't we get a decision on the issue any day now? Perhaps just a statement that the decision is delayed? Maybe there's a hypersonic stealth tanker being tested at Groom Lake?
-
Like they say in a Western movie just before the arrows hit them--"It's awful quiet out there, Luke", "Yeah, Jeb, TOO quiet"
Haven't heard anything about the tanker yet.
"It's awful quiet out there"
-
I think it got postponed to March? But there's also no funding allocated now?? And it's politically impossible now for a USAF decision to stay in effect due to congress being split 50/50 between Boeing/Airbus??? Or is that "split-buy" lobby propaganda?
It's difficult to keep up, I'll wait and see, tired of trying to follow this nonsense.
-
Nonsense it is.
I can just imagine our pilots landing their combat-loaded aircraft at the nearest airport, taxiing to the fueling area and producing a credit card, and saying "fill 'er up!"
-
Waiting for a decision on this is like being at a cheap comedy nightclub where the guy onstage has forgotten his own punchline!
It's embarassing!
-
Ow yeah, and the guy onstage isn't even some amateur, he's a pro and #1 in the entire world.
-
Wow--you're merciless!! Just rub some more salt in this embarrasing wound! Maybe someone in the Pentagon will feel the burn!
-
Just read that Boeing got the contract, true?
-
Surely, you jest!
I know, I know,--stop calling you Shirley!
-
That explains the silence in the past few weeks.
So yeah, Boeing, I'm not surprised.
-
So, let's pretend there won't be a follow-on round... I think there won't be, except maybe some political and legal stuff... how do you guys feel about your new tanker?
-
I'll be able to answer that when I see one parked in the display area of an airshow.
So--When do you think it will be built? When will it first fly, and when will it be operational?
Maybe time for a new topic--"The KC-Y Joke"
-
First flight is scheduled for 2015... 18 aircraft by 2017 under initial contract.
KC-Y... bit early for a topic... wait 10 years?
-
So, it's supposed to take 4+ years to modify an aircraft that's already in production?
How long was it from the first -8 flight until Boeing modified it to be the demonstrator for the KC-135?
Dash 8 first flight--July 15th 1954, KC-135 first flight--August 31st, 1956..
(I'm sure you've heard of the -8s barrel roll during the hydroplane races, in August, 1955 -- I think the pilot came back over the race area and did another one! That kind of confident adventurism is evidently lost forever here.)
Hey, Boeing...Take an airframe from the production line and fit it out with the refueling gear and start testing!! Or, better yet, take one of your own 767s and use it!! (Don't tell me you don't have at least one (f)lying around).
-
You took the thoughts right out of my head! I can see 2015 if they were using the 787! There are plenty of 767s they could 'quick pack' to get the ball rolling (or the fuel flowing as it were) in half the time. We should be making those decisions huh Shawn?
-
Yeah, well, they did all those changes based on 787 tech remember, cockpit etc. And still need new boom.
KC-135... didn't it just get the boom off the KC-97? Boeing boom was ready. Also different times, LeMay/Cold War and Boeing must have been pretty rich at that time...
an airframe from the production line and fit it out with the refueling gear and start testing
Uhm, like I said those aren't the same. If you think that doesn't matter, then you could also say KC-46 = KC-767, so in that sense first flight already occured.
So, it's supposed to take 4+ years to modify an aircraft that's already in production?
I guess, that's why they got so upset when EADS started advertising that their tanker was flying. :P
Or they are playing it safe, having learned that lesson with the 767 delays for Italy/Japan?
-
So, What are the differences between Italy's, Japan's and our proposed tanker?
-
I haven't gotten a clear picture of the "NewGen" compared to the previous "Advanced Tanker" offer, which was quite different from the KC-767. But as far as I know, there's the:
- 1200 gallons per minute boom compared to 900.
- PW engines instead of GE.
- enhanced flightdeck: cockpit displays upgraded with units from the 787.
- if it hasn't changed, the 200ER wing will be replaced with 300F wing
- fitted with blended winglets.
- additional self defense / protection
I'm not sure but I think the international version does not have cockpit armor, and same level of self protection suite, but then again I'm not sure of the latest "NewGen" proposal.
I think the boom operator station is different as well, not sure though.
-
The company has never disclosed the exact configuration of the KC-767 New Gen Tanker airframe, nor its refuelling systems.
“We won’t be rolling out any of those†details in the near future, Muilenberg says.
Muilenberg = chief executive of Boeing’s defence and space business
:P ok, scrap what I said, you just have to wait and see...
-
As most people (from analysts, politicians to aviation fans) expected, EADS will not protest. The rules for the competition were clear. Boeing undercut them on price, and the rules were clear if price difference (with life cycle costs included) is larger than 1%, the "non-mandatory requirements" (can I call it "extra features" or was it more a "wishlist"?) didn't matter, which means the higher capabilities didn't matter. And it was somewhat of a win-win situation for them anyway. We see some evidence in the press release. EADS using the phrases "much is promised", "should they fail to deliver", "ready to step in", haha. Secondly the statement about fleet effectiveness rating should help to promote the MRTT, despite having lost KC-X. They learned relevant lessons which they can apply to the tankers rolling out today, I wonder... I do hope however they learned some lessons with regards to marketing and public opinion, lessons in terms of what not to do! Most important however is the reputation with the DOD, in fact this is so important, I would argue that even if there was something in the bid selection process to bitch about, they wouldn't have protested either (but they couldn't say that out loud with so many stakeholders).
EADS North America will not protest U.S. Air Force’s aerial refueling tanker selection
Arlington, Virginia, 04 March 2011
EADS North America announced today that it will not protest the U.S. Air Force’s selection of the Boeing offering in the competition to replace the service's aging fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.
The company expressed appreciation to the Air Force for running a competition consistent with the rules set out in its Request for Proposal.
“While we are obviously disappointed that our men and women in uniform are not getting the most capable tanker available, we will not take any action that could further delay the already overdue replacement of the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet,†said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “The bid that we submitted was substantially lower than was submitted in the last competition. Our bid reflected a sound business case and offered a reasonable return to our shareholders.â€
“We’re also proud that our involvement in the competition resulted in very significant savings to taxpayers,†Crosby said.
EADS North America’s analysis determined that the KC-X bid submitted by The Boeing Company was nearly $16 billion less for 179 aircraft compared to its original tanker lease offer to the Air Force in 2002, when normalized for escalation and differences in aircraft quantities and requirements.
“Much is promised by our competitor, whom we congratulate. However, should they fail to deliver, we stand ready to step in with a proven and operating tanker,†said Crosby.
The U.S. Air Force also confirmed that the EADS North America tanker was judged to be superior in capability to the Boeing offering as measured by the service’s fleet effectiveness rating.
â€We’ve competed fiercely and demonstrated once again why we have earned a reputation with the Department of Defense for quality, dependability and professionalism,†said EADS North America CEO Sean O’Keefe. “Now our focus is on future opportunities and our continued growth. This experience has strengthened our position in the U.S. marketplace.â€
“We will continue our dialog with the Department of Defense to strengthen our future competitiveness, while also applying relevant lessons learned to the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transports slated for delivery to four U.S. allies,†O’Keefe said.
EADS North America is prime contractor on the Coast Guard’s HC-144A Ocean Sentry maritime patrol aircraft, and the UH-72A Lakota helicopter for the Army and Navy. More than 150 Lakotas have been delivered from the company’s helicopter production center in Columbus, Miss., all on time and on budget.
-
"He who laughs last..."
No winglets--"missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets"
$159.4 million per plane for 175 production aircraft.--
GOOD LUCK, Boeing!
Fixed-price= the government agrees to pay 60% of any cost overrun up to 125% of the negotiated target cost (which does not include the company's profit, which is included in target price). If the overrun reaches the 125% ceiling, then profit begins to erode. "If they overrun their target, they will lose a portion of their profit until it actually goes to zero. And at that point, the contract effectively is at ceiling". "Once they hit ceiling, they start to lose money"
(so says Shay Assad, director of procurement and acquisition policy at the Pentagon.)
Is it any wonder the rest of us mere mortals are confused by all this "male bovine feces"?
"The first developmental aircraft is slated to fly in 2014". "Low rate initial production to begin in 2015".
GOOD LUCK, Boeing!
BUT.."Still in question is how Boeing plans to integrate the Boeing 787 digital cockpit onto the 767, which functions with an analog flight control system" "Assad and Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford (the service's military deputy for acquisition), did not explain how this potentially complex task would be handled."
As if that weren't bad enough, Boeing's earlier 767 tanker proposal was dubbed "Frankentanker" because it included the 767-200 airframe, over wing exits from the -300, floors, doors, and structurally enhanced wings from the 767-300F, and a cockpit, tail section (with modifications) and flaps from the 767-400ER.
AND.. in spite of Assad's acknowledgment that his assessment takes into account Boeing's poor performance delivering 767 refuelers for Japan and Italy, he is still confident that Boeing will be able to meet their schedule.
GOOD LUCK, Boeing.
(quotes from AW&ST, April 11th 2011 issue)
-
so you think the soap opera will become a black comedy?
"missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets"
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.
fixed-price
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 (https://www.virtualpalomarwest.org/sizegenetics-review/) the lobbying doesn't help anyone... but well, gotta love democracy, right..