Comments on: Tanker Weekend Roundup

By: ME

ME — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:47:01 +0000

heres one more comment:
i will repeat the writting of the last posted comment:
JESUS CHRIST! LET THE AIR FORCE DO ITS DAM JOB!
ADDED TO THAT PRAYER: DEAR LORD, MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THE AIR FORCE, OR ANY CUSTOMER KNOWS BEST WHAT THEY NEED, AND THEY REALLY DEPEND ON HAVING THE BEST FOR THE USA & ITS SOLDIERS.
WHEN BEING SENT, ALWAYS SEND WELL EQUIPED,AND WELL PREPARED, AND ALWAYS SEND THE BEST, THAT ARE TAUGHT,AND EQUIPEED WITH THE BEST, AND IT WILL GET DONE,RIGHT, FAST, AND WITH NO ONE MISSING..ALL RETURNING.……
AMEN LORD,
AMEN.……

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:05:48 +0000

ok, i did some more digging on the Revised AE litter station requirement
while what i quoted as 3.2.11.11.3 is in fact what it currently is, it appears the section numbering got changed around from the draft
in the draft, here is what 3.2.11.11.3 said:
> The aircraft shall have the capability to accept the seat rail litter stanchions used on the C-17
i found the comparable text under secion 3.2.1.6.7.3 in the final RFP
> The aircraft shall be capable of using the existing Litter Station Augmentation Set (LSAS) (THRESHOLD).
> The LSAS is a kit containing 9 C-17 litter stations providing 27 litter positions.
neither plane should have a problem meating this

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:37:28 +0000

For those interrested in just how wrong irtusk is, here is a SUMMARY of the CHANGES just from the 15 Dec 2006 Draft RFP & the 30 Jan 2007 RFP (which are comparatively minor compared to the changes made up to the 15 Dec 2006 Draft RFP).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/01/30/2003548546.pdf

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:00:06 +0000

irtusk,
I am really getting fed up with yout LIES (& you calling the truth lies). The program that has lead up to this existed (had been competed for & won) prior to 2006. And the criteria were changed/modified a number of times. They were changed/modified after the lease deal was cancelled & prior to 2006 (they had to just so that there would be another competion because NG/EADS were not even going to bid otherwise) & were changed/modified again between the 2006 & the “final” 2007 RFP & were even changed/modified again shortly before NG/EADs was declared the winner.
There was a prior deal to lease 100 tankers (later changed to leasing 20 & purchasing 80) which was won by Boeing. The 767 was determined to BY FAR be the better aircraft to replace the KC-135. Unfortunately (as quite often happens) even after the 767 had been chosen over the A330 there were some individuals who felt they had to “sweeten” the deal to ensure it went through & benefitted “everyone” (others were just plain stupid).

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:41:17 +0000

Frank Shuler,
You may be right given that a KC-Y contender (intended to replace the KC-10) has now been chosen for the KC-X (intended to replace the oldest KC-135).

By: Rix

Rix — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:55:50 +0000

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this go to the supreme court. Or just awarded to boeing by act of congress.

By: Frank Shuler

Frank Shuler — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:08:03 +0000

pfcem:
If the NG/EADS order stands and their version of the KC-45 actually flies, I suspect the whole concept of Future Tanker X-Y-Z goes by the wayside. By removing the smaller tanker, the Boeing 767 size aircraft from the process, it

By: paco

paco — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:04:31 +0000

Congress can do what they want.…
…until the courts are involved, and if the NG/EADS bid is blocked, i can definitely see it heading there.

By: Frank Shuler

Frank Shuler — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:48:58 +0000

Harlequin:
Another advantage EADS had in this competition was that they had a working prototype of the exact aircraft they bid. The winning 330 design was based on the Australian version of the EADS 330 tanker that uses the larger wing of the Airbus 340. As stated, EADS also built a new boom to meet the USAF requirements for this competition. Boeing never built such a dedicated USAF prototype 767 and their new automatic refueling boom was still in R&D. The NG/EADS KC-45A was deemed to have lower risk than the Boeing product.
Frank Shuler
USA

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:34:37 +0000

Whareagle,
As Camp said only Boeing can say for sure why it offered the 767 & in the configuration it did but…
Boeing had already won the previous tanker contract but that contract was cancelled do to that questionable actions of Druyun & Sears and the USAF was forced to start over & recompete the contract.
And even after the competion critera were changed JUST SO THAT NG/EADS WOULD COMPETE, what Boeing proposed met & exceeded all criteria. My guess is that even though the USAF was forced to recompete the contract & forced to change the criteria because the only other competitor threatened to not bid (because it had already lost & could assume would loose again otherwise) that the USAF would still choose the 767 as they did previously (since it is obviously the right aircraft for the job).
Unfortunately for Boeing the USAF had to judge the proposals based on the criteria they put in the final RFP & under those criteria the NG/EADS had a number of distinct advantages (plus there is a very anti-Boeing sentiment within the KC-X decision committee).
My problem is not with NG/EADS or the A330 derived tanker they proposed — it is/will be a quite capable tanker & serve the USAF well (within the limitations its weight/size dictate). My problem is that it is the wrong aircraft for the KC-X program. The choice of the A330 for the KC-X will (mark my words) FORCE the USAF to chose something more along the lines of the 767 for the KC-Z (the KC-Y is to replace the KC-10 & should be a larger aircraft with greater fuel & cargo capacity) & with the nature of the airline business there may not even be a commercial airliner that fits the bill by then so the KC-Z may end up having to be an all-new airframe designed from the ground up to not only replace the remaining KC-135 but all military 707-based aircraft.