On Tuesday, the Boeing Company formally submitted its protest of the NorGrum/EADS tanker award to the Government Accountability Office. The process takes like 60–90 days supposedly, but have we yet to resolve the CSAR-X protest? No. So I don’t have much hope for this one ending any time soon.
And that’s a shame, because more than a new CSAR, the Air Force has got to replace the oldest of its KC-135s very soon, or metal fatigue will seriously hamper aerial refueling ops. It seems that this argument has been firmly planted in the political arena and that Boeing’s arguments on the technical flaws they find in the award are an outgrowth of prodding from Capitol Hill and the unions.
I could be wrong, of course, and maybe there was a grand conspiracy here to award the deal to Airbus. But it seems to me — and call me crazy — that after the last tanker fiasco (which cost an Air Force Secretary his job) the Air Force would have been SUPER careful about its award. I mean, the Air Force has professional acquisition officers who do nothing their entire careers but buy stuff and work contracts to the “T.” With such a high-stakes contract and its shady history, don’t you think the folks who decided this worked the angles backwards and forwards? It doesn’t make sense to me that the Air Force would have been slip shod on this one.
Secondly, I need to say outright here that Sue Payton, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, is about as professional and honest as any civil servant can come. I interviewed her a couple times over the years and have found her honest, forthright and enthusiastic about her service and responsibilities. I just don’t see her letting anything be taken to chance.
And lastly, I find it humorous that Boeing is using the same argument to protest the tanker award that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are using in their protest of Boeing’s win in the CSAR-X contract: that the service asked for a medium-sized tanker and awarded a heavier one.
Here’s a release from Boeing forwarded to me yesterday after a conference call with reporters (that I missed because my email server was down dammit!) explaining the logic behind their protest:
- The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluations factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price, and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured against the Request for Proposals shows that Boeing had the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and better capability.
- Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure — a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the request for proposal — and the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker they ultimately selected. It is clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of the competition — including manipulation of evaluation criteria and application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key system requirements — resulted in selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
- Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing’s cost/price data, the company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but to federal statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing’s Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information, developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead treated the company’s airframe cost/price information as if it were a military-defense product. Not only did this flawed decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing’s unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.
- In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing — with 75 years of success in producing tankers — is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced Boeing’s position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant details on “somewhat relevant” Northrop/EADS programs to the disadvantage of Boeing’s experience.
- Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life cycle cost,” said McGraw.
“We did bring our A-game to this competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and the selection of a higher risk, higher cost airplane that’s less suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force’s own request for proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be followed.
Come on, everyone, including Boeing, knew from the VERY BEGINNING that Airbus was going to offer up the A330. It seems a little strange for Boeing to complain about some misconception of the criteria now.
But, again, I think this is getting more political than contractual. We’ll see. And keep an eye out for more coverage here on the attempt to hang the lost contract on the Republican presidential nominee…
– Christian
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
What does Boeing have to lose by appealing this decision? Anything?
Looks to me like a lawsuit with a potential $30b upside. After you’ve poured countless millions into getting this contract, wouldn’t it be irresponsible NOT to ask the government to reconsider their decision?
With this avenue available, I’d expect the appeals process to be a pretty standard thing from here on out.
If you think about it from an economic perspective, I think it makes perfect sense for Boeing to use the same protest strategy that LM is using on CSAR-X.
Let’s look at the contract awards as securities. I would venture to say that Boeing’s CSAR-X win would be considered a long position for Boeing while their loss on the tanker contract would be considered a short position. If one assumes that by using the same protest strategy on their short position that LM is using on Boeing’s long position there will be correlation in the resultant outcomes of the two contracts, then Boeing has effectively hedged their positions. If they lose on CSAR-X, they are more likely to win on the tanker contract and vice versa. In either case they do their best to avoid the worst outcome which would be losing both contracts.
The loser from this debacle will be the USAF – the NEED new tankers NOW , and this will rumble on and on for years;
The 767 is in the same clas as the A330 , both are 300 seat in 2 class wide body aircraft , and boeing offered the 767 for, amoungst other reasons – a desire to keep the soon to be dead line open (36 aircraft delivered over 3 years is not a busy line) and they really couldn`t offer the 777 on the price front.
The whole size argument is funny, especially since Boeing regards the 777 (comparable to the A330) as Medium:
“The 777 provides the most payload and range capability and growth potential in the medium-sized airplane category — all with lower operating costs.”
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/background/index.html
The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the Air Force to let Boeing submit a KC-777 proposal & go from there… Although, if they couldn’t deliver the 767 (a smaller aircraft) at the same rate as the A330. I’m kinda doubting their chances on a second go-round.
At some point these delays in major procurements, WILL begin to affect U.S. national security… which means this issue will be put into a holding pattern… until the election is over… Ah, crap!
I wonder when the European (NATO) leaders will start weighing in on this.
Give it up, Boeing. We need the tankers now. Don’t delay it any longer.
> What does Boeing have to lose by appealing this decision?
absolutely nothing
> Looks to me like a lawsuit with a potential $30b upside.
> After you’ve poured countless millions into getting this contract,
> wouldn’t it be irresponsible NOT to ask the government to
> reconsider their decision?
>
> With this avenue available, I’d expect the appeals process
> to be a pretty standard thing from here on out.
yup, you’ve nailed a huge problem with our procurement process
there is ZERO incentive to not protest
there is no potential loss and a huge potential gain
they need some sort of system to penalize frivolous protests to at least make companies think twice
Time to short Boeing stock. When a company resorts to a strategy of lawfare instead of a stratgy of innovation in products and processes it has jumped the shark.
Sure, the appeal is worth doing in an expected value sense, especially since the national defense implications are not part of Boeing’s calculations, but the signal is still, “We can’t compete on substance, so we’ll compete in the courts.”
One of the Boeing drones was attacking the NG/Eads winner of the tanker competition in the Seattle PI Soundoff yesterday:
I wrote the following response.
“Subsidies, whether direct or Indirect occur in virtually every industrialized nation with an Aerospace and Defense Industry presence. Boeing continues to refuse to negotiate a reasonable accord that addresses the subsidy issues. No attempts have been made to curb these subsidies in Russia, China, or Japan. Subsidies are part and parcel of coherent and focused industrial aerospace policies for these latter countries.
Boeing’s tax breaks and other subsidies can certainly seem to be excessive. Per Dr. David Pritchard(U Buffalo) $3.2 billion was promised to Boeing for assembling the B787 in the State of Washington; and he has estimated the cost per future job on the heavily outsourced B787 at a hefty $3.2 million.(http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/10/airbus_subsidie.html). This estimated eventual cost per job is based on the heavy outsourcing production model that Boeing is using on the B787. The Japanese Government kicked in $1.6 Billion in indirect subsidies for the B787 for Boeings major subcontractors in Japan per the above Business Week reference. But Boeing complains of Launch Aid?
The Tanker RFP, from what I read, specifically oks the inclusion of the Northrup/Eads product offering, despite the WTO suit and countersuit. Mr. McCain wanted to create credible competition in this procurement and was instrumental in allowing the NG/Eads to have a fair shot at this work. The WTO card is moot in this tanker procurement. Certainly, Boeing’s behavior in the earlier Tanker deal would have motivated Mr. McCain to encourage a fair and open competition.
The Aerospace Industry needs at least two credible producers for commercial airliners. A valid duopoly helps contain costs, enhances innovation, and gives customers some pricing power in the negotiation process – worldwide. The Member nations of the Airbus Consortium, by themselves, do not have the financial strength to compete in this industry. Collectively, they have forged a hungry and formidable competitor over the last 30 years. Credible competition saves money in commercial or military procurements.
To argue that Boeing has not benefitted from research funded by the U.S. government/technology transfer etc. is certainly an interesting argument but abolutely false.
In this weeks Aviation Week, a headline states that (p.20) “Boeing’s Frankentanker was too risky, expensive for USAF refuelling needs”. The article states “arrogance, lack of focus on customer requirements, and reluctance to provide detailed pricing data contributed to Boeing’s stunning loss”.
In most competitive situations reality checks like this “stunning loss” can serve as a learning tool. I certainly hope that Boeing can learn from this “stunning loss”.
Christian,
This got more political than contractual back in 2004…
Yes, you would think that after the “shady” dealings of a few people during the previous contract that more care would be taken during this one. Unfortunately if even half of what Boeing is saying concerning the issues they have with the selection process is true, they didn’t.
It has nothing to do with the professional acquisition officers & everything to do with outside influences interfering the professional acquisition officers doing their jobs.
***
All of you complaining about the delays the Boeing protest will cause – a contract to begin replacing KC-135 with KC-767 was signed by the Pentagon WAY back on May 23, 2003.
***
J. Brenner,
While Boeing is obviously motivated by its desire to keep the 767 assembly line running (which is no longer selling as well as it once did due to changes in the market – note that the nearest Airbus equivalent [the A310] is already out of production) it is also motivated by the well founded belief that the 767 they offered IS the best airframe to replace the KC-135. A tanker based on the larger 777 would NOT be a better value – it (like the A330) is too big/heavy & would require too much infrastructure improvement (I bet that the cost of infrastructure improvement – even though the computer models used did apply them – was conveniently left out of the evaluation process).
The 767 version/configuration offered for the KC-X is just as “new/advanced” as the A330 version/configuration NG/EADS offered (&/or 777 version/configuration Boeing considered offering).
***
Harlequin,
The 767-200 & A330-200 are not in the same class (although one could make a case that the 767-400 & A330-200 are). The typical 2-class arrangement for the 767-200 is 216; typical 2-class arrangement for the A330-200 is 293. Even if you use the weights for the significantly heavier 767-200ER, the A330-200 has a ~80,000lbs (61%) greater operational empty weight & a ~120,000 lbs (31%) greater max take-off weight.
pcfcem
boeings `frakentanker` hasn`t been built and neither has the boom – the tanker is not a 767-200 , it is parts of a -200, -300 and -400 and freighter (japans 767 is NOT the aircraft offered), so really you can`t use the -200 as the model to compare as it wont help in this case – so ergo my comparison of the 767 > A330 is correct and they both are in the same class; just ask the companies that buy them and they will tell you it was the choice of those 2 aircraft for the same role (and now its the 787 and A350 ofc)
Boeing dropped the ball – they should have taken a long hard look at the RFP and seen what NG were going to do, instead they got complacent and just offered the same thing from 2001; they should have offered the 777 but cost meant they couldn`t , and the cheaper 767 , although the same class as the A330 wasn`t as versitile and so wasn`t what the USAF wanted.
im sorry but i have to laugh now at boeing
[quote]In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing — with 75 years of success in producing tankers [/quote]
can someone tell me which aircraft made in
[b]1933[/b] was an air to air tanker and was in use by whom please.
since it appears the USAF would have loved this ability in WW2 to , i dunno , bomb japan instead of flying bombers off carriers – but apparantly boeing thought not to share this amazing innovation with anyone; or they are making it up.again.
J Brenner you are right 100%. As many strides as Boeing has made in the past decade, they continue to do many things the same as always. They really did bet on the USAF not going foreign for this, but they also started stacking a legal team even before the decision was made. They had to know that there was a chance this would happen. As with all military procurement it needs to start being the best bang for the buck, and not good ol’ boys always win. We need to give our team the tools to win the fight, no matter where we get those tools.
Christian,
I realize everyone strives to be good and fair, but really, hav eyou ever been through a formal, multibillion dollar proposal and bid process? Well I have and I can tell you that the harder they try to be fair, inevitable the more frequently they screw up. It seems that when they try so hard to be fair they end up making over the top decisions that end up being contrary to fair, and even border on absurd.
The more critical and important the aquisition is, the better the chances that they will make mistakes because there is so much pressure on them from the top that signals get crossed and so many are trying so hard to please the political machine they are hired to protect.
Your acusation that Boeing KNEW what airframe Airbus was going to submit therefore they should have known they would lose is rediculous. I can tell you from past experience that if you read in the RFP that the customer wants small, and you KNOW that your competition is bidding something BIG, you do not go out and bid BIG too, you relesh the fact that you have beaten them. So to say that Boeing should have know better, is absurd. Boeing more than likely thought they would win based on the fact that Airbus was submitting something contrary to the RFP requirements/desirements, unless of course Boeing was misled and the rfp evaluation criteria was not followed.
Sorry, but I have won bids before because we bid EXACTLY what the RFP said and our competitors submitted something the customer wanted, but was not stated in the RFP evaluation.
I know you like Sue Payton and everything, but I do think she would have put too much pressure on the evaluators.
As a USAF contracting officer I can tell you for a fact that the loser always looks for ways to contest the award, even if it is done correctly. Add in the fact that the award in this case is at such a high dollar value and the excuses will be prepared before either company loses the award. This is a case of one kid getting a new toy for Christmas and the other doesn’t so he breaks the toy so no one can have fun. Only in this case its a contract and the “kids” are two big businesses, and fun is work. The acquisition team did a great job on a difficult contract period, and are now under scrutiny because of a big business with political connections. Boeing needs to accept the award and stop acting like babies.
Not sure why this hasn’t gotten more attention, but the real eye-opening fact for me was this one:
“Factor 5 — Integrated Assessment
Harlequin-
I belive that the first inflight refueling was between two Boeing-built deHaviland DH-4Bs in the early 1920′s/
> if you read in the RFP that the customer wants small
but nowhere in the RFP did it say they wanted small (or even medium)
> unless of course Boeing was misled and the rfp evaluation criteria was not followed.
or maybe they ignored what the RFP said and listed to some generals about what they THOUGHT the USAF ACTUALLY wanted
in which case they are beyond ignorant, stick with the RFP dummy
> our competitors submitted something the customer wanted, but was not stated in the RFP evaluation.
that is EXACTLY what Boeing did here
they submitted what they THOUGHT the customer wanted, NG/EADS submitted what the RFP said
> NG developed the model used to evaluate its own aircraft?
if Boeing found some flaw in the methodology or found that it wasn’t accurately evaluating the full capability of its bid, they could ask for a fix
> a model that doesn’t provide repeatable results is nearly worthless
i find it VERY hard to believe that if you put the same numbers in, you could get different numbers out. computer programs don’t work like that
> can someone tell me which aircraft made in
>
> [b]1933[/b] was an air to air tanker and was in
> use by whom please.
You can see a picture of it in action in the book of Peter Bowers’ collected essays. It involved one guy strapped to the top of the receiving plane, and a second guy lowered from the tanker plane (a converted Boeing mail/passenger craft) on a rope to guide the hose down to where the guy standing on top of the receiving plane could grab it and attach it to the receptacle port. Even with all brass parts (on the hose that is; the men involved clearly had brass parts too) there was an extreme danger of the entire thing blowing up. But it did fly several time; I believe that is how then-Captain Spaatz set the world record for time aloft.
Cranky
No, I don’t think that applies to the current contract either!
> if Boeing found some flaw in the methodology or
> found that it wasn’t accurately evaluating the
> full capability of its bid, they could ask for
> a fix
Maybe they did? Maybe they didnt realize the extent of the problem with the model until to late?
> computer programs don’t work like that
Yeah, there has never been a flawed computer program anywhere in the DoD. I had the pleasure of trying to fix aircraft mateing and ranging software that was created by Logicon, which NG aquired in the late 1990′s. While they claimed it offered reapetable results, the data usually had to be hand messaged when it was put in and throughout the process.
The computer is not infallible.
I am not sure why folks are upset with this protest. If NG did win this contract as overwhelmingly as many think then the GAO will just confirm it and Boeing will look like even bigger idiots.
“can someone tell me which aircraft made in 1933 was an air to air tanker and was in use by whom please.”
A Douglas C-1, which refueled the “Question Mark”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Mark_(airplane)
“What does Boeing have to lose by appealing this decision? Anything?”
the air force will remember this, and even if it shouldn’t it will be a factor in future competitions for contracts. there competitors will have just a little edge due to this, so if its a close call they are going to lose.
there’s still time boeing. be gracious and you might be able to restore some good will with the air force. stop wasting time with this and get the 787 in the air ASAP. that is going to cost you a lot more in the long run than this tanker will.
funny how the tune of Dicks and friends has changed
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003548741_tanker31.html
> Air Force tanker request gives Boeing edge, for now
>
> “But McCain and Sessions have been counterbalanced in the past year by Dicks,
> who has hovered over the Air Force contract’s wording at every phase.
>
> Gaining majority status for the Democrats in the November congressional
> elections also helped the state’s delegates against Airbus’ backers.
>
> Monday morning, staff for Dicks and Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose Wichita
> district includes a Boeing plant, waited in Dicks’ suite for word that the
> RFP was basically the tanker contract they had sought. Over in the Senate,
> McCain’s supporters peppered Pentagon’s procurement officers with questions.
>
> Dicks said last week that the Air Force would not bend to pressure. He was right.
>
> In the end, the Air Force made only minor modifications to the RFP. It calls
> for a plane essentially equivalent to the old KC-135 refueling tankers and
> emphasizes it will be a fuel tanker first and foremost.”
Thank you Cranky , Lugo and NTV :
the DH4B was never built by Boeing
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=324
By the end of the war, Dayton-Wright delivered 3,106 DH-4s, while the Fisher Body Division of General Motors built 1,600 and the Standard Aircraft Corp. added another 140, bringing the total to 4,846
its still not a Boeing :P but it was the first air to air refueling done by the army.
same with the Douglas C-1 = thats a Douglas aircraft not boeing that made it
the first Boeing airtanker was the KBR-29 in 1948 ;)
but thank you one and all for the info – seems a bit `creative` Spin on Boeings part…
Harlequin-
“After the war a number of firms, most significantly Boeing, were contracted by the US Army to re-manufacture surplus DH.4s to DH.4B standard. Known by Boeing as the Model 16, deliveries of 111 aircraft from this manufacturer took place between March and July 1920, with 50 of them returned for further refurbishments three years later.[1]
In 1923, the Army ordered a new DH.4 variant from Boeing, characterised by a fuselage of fabric-covered steel tube in place of the original plywood structure. These three prototypes were designated DH-4M-1
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airco_DH.4
Also, since Boeing owns McDonnell Douglas they could claim the Douglas aircraft as part of their history.
This appers to me to be another outszing job condonced by Presidential Candidate John Mcain.
Even if the cost factor was more than the other price, we need the jobs. Our economy is down contrary to Bush’s opotimistic outlook. One doesn’t see the average man’s Main Street inside the White House.
This whole thing has turned to a political pissing contest. We will get what the ‘winner’ gives us. You fight a war with the stuff you got, remember? Lets hope that when NATO has a hissy fit and decides to run up the white flag they dont cripple us in their dubious decision making.
Actually, you are. The original Request for Proposal established the criteria for the program, and the criteria emphasized affordable medium-sized tankers to replace the KC-135s, NOT a follow-on expensive large tanker to replace the KC-10.
It was Airbus that didn’t have an appropriate derivative to bring to this competition and when Airbus proposed the A330 they were told from the start it was a nonplayer. But then enter John McCain, who intimidated the Air Force with repeated letters about the necessity to modify the mission requirements to insure competition.
Had Boeing been told at the outset that criteria would be modified to include fuel capacity greater than what was originally required, or increased troop or cargo capacity, they might well have gone with a derivitive of their 777 which would have easily excelled in these areas.
No, if Boeing can indeed make a case that the criteria were changed after they had finalized on the 767 design which was desirable by Air Force standards because the Air Force already operates a fleet of such aircraft http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-767.htm
not only may the contract have to be set aside, but the government may have to compensate Boeing for their development costs.
> This appers to me to be another outszing job
> condonced by Presidential Candidate John Mcain
this has nothing to do with McCain
> Even if the cost factor was more than the other price, we need the jobs.
1. i’m not willing to sacrifice the safety of our men and women in uniform for such considerations
2. if you are, you should still support the EADS/NG bid as they will build many more planes than just the tankers at that factory in Mobile
the end results is MORE JOBS for America
> i’m not willing to sacrifice the safety of our
> men and women in uniform for such considerations
With all due respect in this case choseing Boeing will not “sacrifice the safety of our
> men and women in uniform”. Its a Tanker plane that passes gas and transports people. Both planes are capable, and as such chosing one over the other isnt going to affdect life or limb.
FYI for those who think this protest is “business as usual”, I cannot say when Boeing last filed a protest but it has definitely been more than 30 years. In the sixties when things were run a lot more loosely, Boeing had very good reasons to protest but did not. Competitions for the C-5A cago plane and the TFX fighter for example were swiped from them on pure backroom politics. This protest is highly unprecedented for them.
Since the majority of the plane will be built in the U.S., Alabama to be precise, the jobs issue is a non-issue. What is a factor is that the American taxpayer received a better deal.
Hey… let’s hold our horses here….
This old timer had an opportunity to hitch a ride in a KC-135R not to long ago and saw Vipers being refueled by our blue-suiters with the ANG 163rd ARW. They by the way can off-load considerably more fuel than the KC-45…. What, you say?
Unfortunately Northrop-Grumman/EADS KC-45 can’t hold a candle to it since the max. fuel load is only 180,000 lbs. vs. the
R’s at 200,000 and if I could add the KC 767-200ER’s at 202,000 lbs. This means a serious strategic refueling shortfall… guys and gals.
Now let’s look at another major discrepancy. The KC-45′s wingspan is 42′ longer and it’s overall length is 33′ more than the Boeing which translates into a massive building campaign to re-hangar those outsized beasts.
Add this to the overall funding required and the KC-45 begins to look like an albatross even without factoring in the 24 per cent added fuel costs….
Do we want a less efficient platform serving ACC?
Me thinks not….
irtusk,
How convenient it must be to ignor that the program to replace the KC-135 existed prior to Sep 2006…
Old timer
NTV: Yep, my thoughts exactly. I don’t understand why people are so upset (on both sides) by who won or lost the contract. I’m curious to see if the AF will release some more facts so that people can see for themselves how the decision was made. My main interest is really to see if the competition sheds any insights into the AF’s views of the future of air combat, like one of the earlier postings mentioned.
Re: asking for a fix on a model. Give a programmer enough time, and he can easily make a model complex enough that no one can really understand it. If you can’t understand it, that can cripple your ability to critique it. It still doesn’t mean the model isn’t wrong. My primary point, though, is that it just seems like a very bad idea to have one of the competitors design the model that’s used for evaluation. It just can’t help but give the impression of impropriety.
The Boeing spin machine is pretty amazing. I wonder what their next beef with the process will be? It is almost like they’re throwing things at the wall to see what will stick, and this ‘model’ thing is only the latest.
I’ll be dollars to donuts their ‘Factor 5′ complaint is a mischaracterization of how the modelling was used: calling parametric excursions to test “what ifs” and the sensitivity of the results(like ‘what if we have three airfields that can handle operations in a geographical area instead of four?”) ‘tweaking’ like it was a bad thing.
Folks, that what this kind of modeling is for. You take a set of assumptions including probabilities and run them, then change the assumptions and see how the results change to gain better understanding of the outcomes. If something doesn’t make sense, you figure out why and make adjustments to the process, models or assumptions. To believe Boeing’s claim you’d have to believe the AF was trying to pull something along the lines of a major conspiracy and hope nobody noticed the books were cooked. I don’t buy it.
Tanker Pilot is right to worry about the -135s breaking up while this thing plays out. That’s my worry as well.
> Its a Tanker plane that passes gas and transports people. Both planes are capable,
> and as such chosing one over the other isnt going to affdect life or limb
not true
one is more capable than the other
if there is ever a time that extra capability is needed and it doesn’t have it, then yes it does put people at risk
for instance, let’s say a CAS plane is low on fuel and is returning to base
a call comes in for emergency support
there was a KC-767 on station but it had to head back because it was getting low on fuel
thus the CAS plane can’t respond, the troops’ position gets overrun and 8 people die
if there had been a KC-30 on station, it could have hung around longer, refuelled the CAS plane and saved the troops on the ground
you protest ‘but that’s poor planning! they should have had a replacement tanker take it’s place!’
well, you’re right, BUT in war shit happens
maybe it was poor planning, maybe the replacement tanker had to divert for mechanical issues
maybe there was an emergency somewhere else that called it away
the point is, you never turn down extra capability because some day, somewhere you will need it and you (and the troops on the ground) will regret not having it
> Competitions for the C-5A cago plane and the TFX fighter for example were swiped from them on pure backroom politics.
i don’t know about the TFX, but the 747 simply didn’t have the same capabilities as the C-5
can you roll a heavy tank onto a 747? can you land a 747 on a sandy beach?
> How convenient it must be to ignor that the program to replace the KC-135 existed prior to Sep 2006…
i didn’t ignore it, i pointed out how it was corrupt to the core
specifically that article you never seem to read
> They offered what the USAF cleary indicated they wanted
they should have stuck to the RFP
> even under the altered criteria met or exceeded all requirements
and the KC-30 exceeded them even more
> And according to what Boeing is saying about what they were told by the USAF, they got the same score as EADS in all 5 of the MAJOR categories.
if you read it very carefully (like a lawyer), that’s not PRECISELY what they’re saying
> My primary point, though, is that it just seems like a very bad idea to have one of the
> competitors design the model that’s used for evaluation. It just can’t help but give the
> impression of impropriety.
as long as all the parties have access to the source so they can evaluate it, i don’t see a problem with it
the AF is wise to use all tools at its disposal
Boeing could have developed their own model but they didn’t so that just left the EADS/NG one
irtusk-
Of course the same hypothetical situation could happen if the KC-30 was on station. WHy not get a 747 filled with gas then, or build the CAS with more fuel, etc… While you dont want to turn down capability, what happens if you can get more of one product than the other. What happens if you have a lesser number of KC-30′s and they are all down do to rest/maintance requirments, but if you had more KC-767′s then they wouldnt all be down for rest/maintance requirments. If shit happens it happens.
> WHy not get a 747 filled with gas then, or build the CAS with more fuel, etc…
> While you dont want to turn down capability, what happens if you can get more of one product than the other.
those situations involved tradeoffs of various sorts, more of one capability for less of another capability
this decision doesn’t involve any tradeoffs, more capabilities for lower price
why in the world would you choose fewer capabilities for higher price?
well, unless you don’t value the lives of men and women in uniform of course
> What happens if you have a lesser number of KC-30′s
but we won’t have lesser amounts of KC-30′s, we’re ordering 179 no matter which plane
irtusk,
Correction to your scenario…(just an example of course – not meant to represent any specific scenario)
KC-767AT
Because of their size & weight, 32 KC-767AT are able to operate from all 3 “support” bases in the theater of operation (8 at the small base & 12 at each of the 1 medium & 1 large bases).
Total offloadable fuel: 6,400,000 lbs
Now take your CAS aircraft in need of fuel. With a total of 32 KC-767AT in theater operating from all 3 “support” bases virtually all aircraft in the theater of operations are less than 30 min away from a designated refueling point.
KC-30
Because of their size & weight, 14 KC-30 are able to operate from 2 of the 3 “support” bases in the theater of operation (none at small base, 6 at the medium base & 8 at large base).
Total offloadable fuel: 3,500,000 lbs
Now take your CAS aircraft in need of fuel. With a total of 14 KC-30 in theater operating from 2 of the 3 “support” bases some aircraft in the theater are less than 30 min away from a designated refueling point, some are closer to 45 min away & some are more than an hour away because there are not enough KC-30 operating in theater to have enough on station in enough locations to cover the theater of operation as thoroughly. And because no KC-30 can operate from the small “support” base, the theater around it is even less well covered since the KC-30 operating from the larger “support” bases have to travel a greater distance to the designated refueling points thus significantly reduceing the amount of fuel available to offload. But the biggest hold up is that there are half as many booms in the air so even when an aircraft reaches a designated refueling point it has to wait twice as long in line before it can refuel (buring more fuel in the process thus requiring more once it does hook up).
irtusk,
Now to your other BS…
Again, nobody has said that there were not issues with the previous contract BUT the fact is the criteria for a replacement for the KC-135 has changed a number of times since 2001 (you just happen to conveniently ignor those that occured prior to Sep 2006).
In the 1st round, fresh from a study specifically intended to determine the USAF’s future tanker needs, the 767 was the clear winner (not only on the merits of the airframe itself but other political merits as well). The USAF clearly indicated that the 767 was the airframe they wanted & that the A330 was a “non-starter” due to its size & weight. Although even at that point the USAF reconized the value of a larger tanker to replace the KC-10 later on to supplement a fleet of 767 tankers & indicated that a program for a larger tanker would likely be coming down the road but that for replacing the KC-135 (which were in need of replacement 1st) as the primary tanker, the 767 suited their needs MUCH better.
The problem with the final RFP is that the criteria themselves were still vague enough that either the 767 or the A330 could meet them (NG/EADS even threatened to pull their bid unless the criteria were further revised/clearified but having already bent over backwords & changing the criteria to accomodate the A330 the USAF declined). Either airframe could win depending on the DETAILS of how each criteria were judged & weighted…
What Boeing is saying is that both bids got the same score on the “scorecard” & that the choice of the A330 over the 767 was based on criteria/factors not expressed in the RFP. Boeing is also saying that there are irregularities on how the criteria for the two bids were judged.
And last but cetainly not least…DON’T CONFUSE GREATER CAPACITY WITH GREATER CAPABILITY. :)
Why not a 747 with gas?
—Because Boeing didn’t offer one…. or a more capable 767…..or a 777.
Why not a CAS with more fuel?
—Aircraft design tailors design features to the mission and there are tradeoffs in all aspects of design. Carrying more fuel means you are changing the combat/mission radius and this means adverse impacts to the design equation. It can mean less agility and lower survivability. It can mean a larger aircraft with more structural weight as well as fuel weight. It can mean either leaving weapons payload behind or spending less than optimal time on station with the desired payload. It can mean a lot of other things as well. I recommend “The Conceptual Approach to Aircraft Design” by Dan Raymer as a primer if you really want to get into the whys and wherefores of modern aircraft design.
> Because of their size & weight, 14 KC-30 are able to operate from 2 of the 3 “support” bases in the
> theater of operation (none at small base, 6 at the medium base & 8 at large base).
except that’s not true
when the UK was studying the KC-30 vs KC-767 they could find NO airfields that would support the KC-767 but not the KC-30
but they did find the reverse!
in actuality the KC-30 can operate from more airfields
and not only can it operate from more airfields, it can operate from airfields that are further away, opening up even more basing possibilities
furthermore the size difference doesn’t make nearly as much difference as you seem to claim
32 vs 14 is purely ridiculous
i don’t have the exact numbers, but at a real world field like at Kandahar, the difference is more like 12 vs 11
SMSgt Mac,
Don’t confuse what the USAF was told they had to do with what they wanted to do…
SMSMac
> Because Boeing didn’t offer one…. or a more capable 767…..or a 777.
I didnt say they did, I am responding to irtusks comments about needing more capacity, If capacity was really tht important,then the AF would have specified a BIG,BIG tanker. They didnt, because they realize that humonougs tankers are the beal all and end all.
> Aircraft design tailors design features to the
> mission and there are tradeoffs in all aspects
> of design.
Yeah, I understand that, again its a response to irtusks hypothetical situation. If we are gonna play what if games we need to play them all. The cas plane could get two more hard points and carry 500 gallons externally. The fuel tradeoffs are endless.
> To believe Boeing’s claim you’d have to believe
> the AF was trying to pull something along the
> lines of a major conspiracy and hope nobody
> noticed the books were cooked.
No. Its my experince that the AF doesnt always understand the tools they use, and that in many cases its the contractors that run the tools.
I also know that there where times when one part of my company delivered software to the AF and another part of our company validated it. And Man was the AF pissed, and they retested it. Having a NG product validate another NG, if true, raises questions. It may be legite, but it does deserve to be looked into.
irtusk.
> this decision doesn’t involve any tradeoffs, more capabilities for lower price
Still on that I see. altough you dont really know if its right. I posted a link to a DID article on this the other day. Here it is again.
LINK: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/KC-X-Rating-the-Contenders-04777/#more-4777
”
Cost/price. Boeing reportedly created difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its development cost assumptions. This is said to have hurt the confidence rating of its projections, which reportedly led to a lower life cycle cost rating. US News & World Report goes further:
> Still on that I see. altough you dont really know if its right
yes i do
> I posted a link to a DID article on this the other day. Here it is again.
yeah i saw it
it says the AF believe the KC-30 has lower life-cycle costs
good enough for me
> To belive that choosing the 767 puts lives in danger means that
> the AF itself would deliberatlly put its men and women in danger.
no, it means they agree that the 767 puts lives in danger and thus selected the more capable KC-30
> The 767 meets the minimmum requirments of the RFP
and the KC-30 exceeds them
> Therefore the AF thinks its capable aircraft.
and the KC-30 is more capable
are we detecting a pattern here?
> If the 767 puts lives at risk then the RFP itself put lives at risk.
> Futhermore the 767 is more capable than the 135, HAve the 135′s been
> putting lives at risk for 40 years? Why didnt the AF buy more KC-10′s
> so lives where not at risk?
since you insist on playing the simpleton, let me spell it out for you
all equipment is imperfect and puts lives at risk
until we have the ideal tanker that can takeoff and land vertically with infinite fuel, infinite range, perfect visual, ir and radar stealth, and fly at any speed between 0 and infinity then all tankers are less than perfectly capable (ie cost lives)
it is of course a question of degrees
the KC-767 is more capable than the KC-135 (and thus costs less lives)
the KC-30 is more capable than the KC-767 (and thus costs even fewer lives)
the AF had to set a goal somewhere realistic and so they drew a line and said ‘any new tanker must be at least this capable’
why not draw it higher? well capability comes at a cost and the AF doesn’t have infinite money. If they spent all their money on the perfect tanker (which will never exist) they wouldn’t have any money left over for fighters or missiles or fuel or anything else
it is all a balancing act to find the best balance between cost and capability
would the 777 have been more capable than the A330? yes (in some ways)
would it have been a good balance between cost and capability? NO
the fact is the AF couldn’t afford a full buy of 777′s period, so whether they are more capable is a moot point
> They will meet that demand, for example, by 8 bigger tankers, each with 250,000 lbs cpacity or 10 smaller tankers with 200,000 lbs capacity
yes you can try to design missions around the weakness of the planes, but there are limits to what you can do
if it can’t use a certain runway because its takeoff performance is so low there’s nothing you can do
also running more planes equals more expense
> right now thats true but whats gonna happen with KC-Y and KC-Z?
well who knows, so what’s your point?
> Not to mention if they spend less money on tankers they might be able to buy some more F-22′s or F-35′s, or moretankers down the road.
exactly
> it says the AF believe the KC-30 has lower life-cycle costs
Actually, it says that the confidence level was lower, NOT the life-cycle costs.
> no, it means they agree that the 767 puts lives
> in danger and thus selected the more capable KC-30
Thats a pretty simplton answer to me.
If the 767 puts lives in danger then why didnt they upgrade the RFP???????????
>> The 767 meets the minimmum requirments of the RFP
>and the KC-30 exceeds them
>> Therefore the AF thinks its capable aircraft.
> and the KC-30 is more capable
> are we detecting a pattern here?
Yes we are, the pattern of you not reading what I type. I SAID the A330 was more capable. I have always said that it carries more.
> since you insist on playing the simpleton, let
> me spell it out for you
> all equipment is imperfect and puts lives at risk
Please spell it out for me and dont use all those big words. my little brain cant comprehend them. Please bless us all with your large intellect.
Seriuosly mandont be condisending, you aint that smart. No one here is.
Yes, I realize the trade offs. I have observed them for the last 10 years when KC-10′s get traded of against 135′s. And geuss what, the AF doesnt view it as putting lives at brisk. Like I said they base tankers where they need them, If they have KC-10′s at a location, there are less of them than 135′s.
> the fact is the AF couldn’t afford a full buy
> of 777′s period, so whether they are more
> capable is a moot point
This just proves my point. I have never said that the Boeing should propose 777′s. I know they would be expensive. But yet you bring it up in response to me. DO you pay attention to what I type.
> yes you can try to design missions around the
> weakness of the planes, but there are limits to
> what you can do
Yes there are limits, the same lim its would apply to A330 as well. They are finite resources, and they will be stretched thin just like KC-10′s are today. There still are situations where the A330′s cant carry enough gas.
AND YES I REALIZE that the 330 can carry more gas, but shit can happen to plan for bigger tankers to.
> well who knows, so what’s your point?
Oh, I dont know they could have more money to buy more tankers.
>> it says the AF believe the KC-30 has lower life-cycle costs
>
> Actually, it says that the confidence level was lower, NOT the life-cycle costs.
“low confidence” is government speak for “don’t believe”
they don’t believe Boeing’s projections and thus believe the KC-30 will have lower life-cycle costs
that’s why the KC-30 was rated superior in the cost arena
> If the 767 puts lives in danger then why didnt they upgrade the RFP???????????
to what end? allowing the 767 to compete keeps EADS/NG honest and results in a better price
they can still pick the more capable plane, they just get it at a better price
> I SAID the A330 was more capable. I have always said that it carries more.
so what’s your argument against it? that it costs more? even though the AF rated it superior on price?
> Yes, I realize the trade offs. I have observed them for the last 10 years when KC-10′s get
> traded of against 135′s. And geuss what, the AF doesnt view it as putting lives at brisk
you work with what you have
>> the fact is the AF couldn’t afford a full buy
>> of 777′s period, so whether they are more
>> capable is a moot point
>
> This just proves my point. I have never said that the Boeing should propose 777′s.
> I know they would be expensive. But yet you bring it up in response to me. DO you
> pay attention to what I type.
the 777′s were to illustrate my example about the cost/performance balance
specifically why not set the RFP higher? because the only planes that could meet it (like the 777) are unaffordable
> Yes there are limits, the same lim its would apply to A330 as well.
if you actually read what i said you would know that i already said that
here, let me quote it for you again
> all tankers are less than perfectly capable (ie cost lives)
now getting back to you:
> AND YES I REALIZE that the 330 can carry more gas, but shit can happen to plan for
> bigger tankers to.
the ENTIRE POINT of my post that just went over your head is that you have to balance capabilities and price.
yes there might be times you need something more capable than the KC-30, but right now that capability (like the 777) is unaffordable
right now the KC-30 is the sweet spot of price and performance
Yeah I get the ‘hypothetical’ – the word ‘hypothetical’ in the comment kind of gave it away. My point is there’s a lot of hypothetical things Boeing could have done.
By the way some commenters here are talking about the ‘size’ edge that the KC-30 (now KC-45 of course) had over Boeing’s KC-X entry, one might conclude that the argument for the KC-30 would be that bigger is always better. As I posted either here or on the previous threads earlier, it may be that the KC-30 ‘capability’ was closer to the optimum in the tradeoffs and that any ‘bigger’ would mean moving out of the capability sweet spot.
Just looking at the fuel offload capability for instance, the AF could have decided that based upon the projected range and fuel capacity and efficiency of the fleet for the next X years, and in the environment it is expected to operate in, that it is better to have something bigger than a 767 but smaller than a 777. Who knows?
The factors that would drive the right balance of tanker/cargo numbers and unit capability are waaay to complicated a subject for these boards …but press on if you insist!
irtusk,
I said it was only an example! I probably should have used an example using more airfields & even included out-of-theater airfields but no matter how you slice it, in reality, with KC-767 you WILL have more booms in the air & have MORE total fuel to transfer in most theaters.
The UK DID NOT study all airfields, only ones they regularly operate from. It is a 100% FACT that 767-200 can (because of their smaller size & lower weight) operating from airfields that the A330-200 simply can not & that for the same reasons MORE 767-200 can operate from many airfields than A330-200.
32 vs 14 was not the number at any one airfield but the total number in theater.
***
BOTH Boeing & NG/EADS asked for clarification of the criteria! And it is becasue the RFP was fague that both Boeing & NG/EADS were confident that what they proposed was better than the others.
Direct quote from Boeing:
”
The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and better capability.
”
I never said lesser capacity equals greater capability but it is a fact that greater capacity does not neccessarily equal greater capability. When you look as real-world scenarios the KC-767AT puts more booms in the air woth an overall greater total fuel offload capability (the opposite of what it appears based on an over-simlified 1-vs-1 specification comparision).
NG was able to “prove” the A330 was not handicaped by altering the simulation data. They strengthened & enlarged infrastructure & placed their aircraft closer together than they are in the real world.
> in reality, with KC-767 you WILL have more booms in the air & have MORE total fuel to transfer in most theaters.
this is just flat out wrong
the KC-30 can operate from more airfields and can stay on station longer
on station longer = less time in transit = more booms in the air
> The UK DID NOT study all airfields, only ones they regularly operate from
of course they didn’t study all, but they studied hundreds
not finding a single one that the KC-767 had an advantage at should tell you something
> It is a 100% FACT that 767-200 can (because of their smaller size &
> lower weight) operating from airfields that the A330-200 simply can not
no one’s found one yet
don’t think that just because it’s smaller it has better takeoff performance, that is absolutely not true
the ginormous wing of the A330 generates a ton of lift and allows it takeoff at slower speeds
theoretically, there could be some taxiway that supports the 767 but not the A330, but again no one’s found one yet
> When you look as real-world scenarios the KC-767AT puts more booms in the air woth an overall greater total fuel offload capability
simply not true
the KC-30
1. can operate from more airfields
2. carry more gas
3. stay on station longer
4. operate from bases further away
the ONLY area where the KC-767 has any sort of ‘advantage’ is parking footprint, and even that isn’t that big. Again i don’t have the exact numbers, but at someplace like Kandahar it was 12 KC-767s vs 11 KC-30s
and the extra capacity, range and endurance of the KC-30 more than makes up for that
for booms in the air, you can’t beat the KC-30
> They strengthened & enlarged infrastructure
again no one has found a taxiway that will support the KC-767 but not the KC-30
> placed their aircraft closer together than they are in the real world.
nope, the AF does park aircraft that close which is why they allowed that change
irtusk,
No the KC-30 can NOT operate from more airfields than the KC-767AT. The KC-767AT can operatate from ANY airfield the KC-30 can operate from but the opposite is not true – there are airfields who’s infrastructure can accomodant the KC-767AT but not the KC-30 due to its size &/or weight.
And the KC-30 carrying more fuel does not neccessarily mean it can stay on station longer – it depends on how far/long it had to fly to get on station plus every minute a KC-30 is in the air it burns ~25% more fuel than a KC-767AT…
on station longer =/= less time in transit =/= more booms in the air
And I guess you need to tell the airlines that the A330-200 can operate from any airport that can operate the 767-200 then… But since you are under the illusion that no such airfields can be found I will give you oa couple – Invercargill Airport, NZ & Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, USA.
RE: “The KC-767AT can operate from ANY airfield the KC-30 can operate from but the opposite is not true.”
Well if both NG’s and Boeing’s websites are to be believed, the 767 tanker can ‘use an 8000 ft runway’, and the A330 tanker can ‘takeoff in 7000 ft’. Both numbers are for fully-loaded aircraft, and I assume this is best perfomance at sea-level, standard day. So it would seem that the A330 can at least perhaps use some airfields that the 767 cannot? Even if this is just the same performance expressed in different ways, the point that NG makes with the number of airfields is that for any given scenario, the A330 can operate out of more distant fields (adding numbers of options) than the B767.
The higher fuel burn of the A330 is only to the Boeing’s advantage if it is higher per payload unit per mission mile or mission hour, with payload unit being expressed in pounds of off-boardable (for lack of a better word) fuel, numbers of passengers or patient litters carried, and of course pounds or pallets of cargo (depending upon if volume or mass is the constraining factor). Example: If the 767 burns 10% less fuel, but you can fly either 1 fully loaded A330 or 2 B767s, then I’d say chances are pretty darn good that you will be burning more fuel flying 2 767s. Even if you can balance the load to make the 767′s fuel burn rates even lower individually, unless each 767 now burns half as much fuel as the A330 (highly improbable given the similarity in powerplants and thrust ratings) then you are burning more fuel using 767s than the A330 for the same mission. There’s a whole pile of other considerations and questions concerning the AF needs thet the AF knows and we don’t. Things such as how many tankers are needed to support one-way fighter drags? How important is what capability to which mission? How important is the ability get to and to stay on station? How important is cruise speed (the A330 is nominally faster) or best loiter time? What’s the lowest manpower option? The AF knows what is important to them and we don’t. It also sounds like Boeing is telling its Customer that they know better than the Customer what the Customer needs. This was a mistake my company used to make and I remember a lot of lost contracts during that timeframe.
Speaking of airlines and the ‘B767 vs the A330-200′ battle. It is interesting that this is one airframe market competition where EADS seems to be beating Boeing. A person on an earlier thread was insisting that the A330 just HAD to be in a different class and Boeing was sputtering about the A330 being so much bigger (heavy vs medium argument). It took very little research to find that the A330-200 is a direct competitor to the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. While I personally would describe the two aircraft as being of different ‘classes’ (both smaller than a B777 or B747 ‘class’ BTW) the airliner market is what has declared these two airframes competitors.
Since the A330-200 is a shortened version of the A330, I’m wondering if Boeing is kicking themselves over electing to not come out with a shortened version of the 777 and instead opting to stretch the 767. History would have given them confidence in such a decision at the time they made it, since the A330-200 has been the only really successful ‘shrink job’ I can think of. All others that come to mind have not been very successful (sales wise) – a good example would be one of my all-time favorite airliners: the B747SP.
One has to wonder if Boeing has the audacity to tell its commercial customers that they can’t buy A330s intead of B767s because they are ‘too different’.
SMSgt Mac,
The devil is in the details reguarding runway length.
Once again…The KC-767AT has the airframe of the 767-200 (smallest & lightest 767) with the wings, landing gear & higher thrust engines of larger/heavier 767. The KC-30 may have superior take-off performance tha the “basic” KC-767 previously sold but the KC-767AT (as some are so keen to point out) IS NOT the same aircraft.
Boeing is not kicking themselves over electing to not come out with a shortened version of the 777 and instead opting to stretch the 767. Boeing proposed what it believes (which had previously been confirmed) is the right sized airframe to replace the KC-135.
The 767-300 & 767-400 are “direct competitors” to the A330-200 in some markets but the 767-200 is not.
Boeing doesn’t have to tell its commercial customers that they can’t buy A330-200s intead of 767-200s because they are ‘too different’, customers know every bit as much as Boeing how different the two are. The “competition” that has done the most to reduce demand for the 767-200 are stretched versions of Boeing’s own 757.
irtusk,
hypothetical situation…
KC-767AT operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point.
KC-30 being too big &/or heavy can not operate from said airfield & thus has to operate from an airfield ~750 miles from designated refuelling. point.
OR
KC-30 operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point can only do so at a significantly reduced take-off weight thus negating (or even reversing) it fuel offload advantage.
If A330-200 are operating from Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport then significant improvements to the airfield infrastrutcure have been made to support heavier aircraft or the A330-200 operating from there are doing so at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced take-off weight.
It is actually quite common to see in many areas a single (or few) large airfield(s) which can operate “virtually anything” supported by a larger number of smaller airfields which can only operate aircraft up to a certain size &/or weight limit. There are also areas where there are NO “large” airfields & even the largest airfields around can only operate aircraft up to a certain size &/or weight limit.
Keep in mind that the KC-30 carries less than 50,000 lbs more “maximum offloadable” fule than the KC-767AT BUT is more than 100,000 lbs heavier. Also keep in mind that some airfields are limited by weight (thus a A330/KC-30 could technically operate from their but ONLY at reduced take-off weights) while others are limited by hanger &/or ramp space (which a A330/KC-30 could only operate from after improvements to the infrastruture). Of course (as I ahve said before) the same is true for the 767 BUT the size & weight threshold for the 767 are significantly lower.
The manufacturing guys over at Evolving Excellence have also been taking Boeing to task, first in terms of the hypocrisy of whining about losing the tanker deal to NG/Airbus at:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/boeing-whiner-e.html
Then the even greater hypocrisy of the politicians that are siding with Boeing:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/so-whos-more-pa.html
Ken
> The “competition” that has done the most to reduce demand for the 767-200 are stretched versions of Boeing’s own 757.
the 757 hasn’t been in production for 4 years and the 767-200 still isn’t selling . . .
> KC-30 being too big &/or heavy can not operate from said airfield
except in real life that just doesn’t happen
> KC-30 operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point
> can only do so at a significantly reduced take-off weight thus negating (or
> even reversing) it fuel offload advantage.
again not going to happen
here’s a hypothetical:
the runway at some podunk field (like say MILDENHALL) is too short for the KC-767AT so it has to takeoff with a reduced fuel load
except, it’s not a hypothetical
> There are also areas where there are NO “large” airfields & even the
> largest airfields around can only operate aircraft up to a certain
> size &/or weight limit.
sure there are weight limited airports
it’s just that generally if they’re strong enough to support a 767 they’re also strong enough to support an A330
you are simply going to find more fields where the KC-767 is limited by runway length than the KC-30 is limited by weight restrictions
you can’t deny it
and another thing to consider is that it’s not just weight, it’s weight distribution (ie weight per tire)
both have 2 double twin main landing gear and a twin nose gear BUT the KC-30 is also fitted with the center-line twin gear from the A340 family
the extra tires help distribute more of the weight and allow it to use runways you would otherwise think it couldn’t
> while others are limited by hanger
1. you can operate without a hangar
2. lots of the KC-135 hangars don’t accomodate the KC-767 either, so they will have to be redone whatever the case
> ramp space (which a A330/KC-30 could only operate from after improvements to the infrastruture)
ramp space isn’t nearly as big an issue as you think plus since the KC-30 can put more booms in the air, there will be fewer planes sitting at the base (as opposed to the more more-booms-on-the-ground KC-767)
an interesting quote from the comments here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/03/10/boeing-experiences-drag/
who knows how credible it is, but interesting nonetheless . . .
> My spouse worked on the original tanker proposal (the one that
> was awarded to Boeing, then taken away). When the government/Air
> Force first came to Boeing about the tanker idea, Boeing shoved
> the 767 platform down their throats about as calmly as a car
> salesman will sell you the lot-lemon. The Air Force asked for a
> quote on a 777 platform, and Boeing countered that
> Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully ;)
irtusk,
You lack of understanding of real life is pathetic.
There are NO airfields or runways which the KC-30 can operate from where the KC-767AT can not. But there ARE runways & airfields which the KC-767AT can operate from where the KC-30 can not.
The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767 sold to Italy & Japan.
> The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767
> sold to Italy & Japan.
no kidding, let us compare the specs
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html
“The ability to take off at NEAR maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway”
in other words, it is limited from an 8000 ft runway and who knows what ‘near’ means
now let us compare to the KC-45
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/deploying.html
“The aircraft’s excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded.”
so there we have it:
KC-767AT – 8000′ at LESS THAN MTOW
KC-45 – 7000′ at MTOW
irtusk,
Ha, ha, ha.
That is the problem with only getting your infomation from the internet…
Note how nearly all the “data” on the KC-767AT on the internet is rather vague. ;)
Take a wild guess where the “8,000ft” figure comes from. I would tell you but you obviously don’t believe FACTS others present that disagree with your misconceptions.
RE: Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully ;)
Well said although the best product & price is of no value without delivery !
With regards
Dave
I honestly do not thing that the United States government should be awarding a 100 billion dollar stimulus package to France. Regardless of mild performance differences between the two companies, I think it’s time to reconsider the number of jobs that would be generated in the United States as a result of our government investing in Boeing. I do not work for Boeing, I do not work in the aviation industry. I work in healthcare. It seems incredibly short sighted. How can they EVER encourage us to “Buy American” after something like this? It smacks of hypocrisy.
Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings