Is it un-American to want the U.S. Air Force to purchase the primarily European-built EADS Airbus A330 aircraft for its next-generation tanker aircraft? Speaker of the House Ms Nancy Pelosi and several members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, believe that to procure a foreign aircraft is reprehensible.
The A330MRTT was selected in a second competition for the next-generation tanker — to be designated KC-45 — winning out against the Boeing KC-767. There was great irony when the Air Force announced selection of the A330MRTT in late February 2008. Boeing had been awarded a contract for its KC-767AT to serve as the next-generation tanker in a 2002 lease-buy agreement. That deal was to provide 100 tankers at a cost of more than $20 billion.
But several members of Congress as well as Department of Defense officials and analysts questioned that deal. It unraveled with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition — who took a job with Boeing shortly after the contract award — going to jail and several Boeing officials stepping down.
A new competition for the tanker contract was held with a rigorous and transparent process. The A330MRTT was selected on the basis of cost and, in most selection categories, superior performance. The A330MRTT has operated as a tanker and has been selected for that role by Great Britain (14 aircraft), Australia (5), the United Arab Emirates (3), and Saudi Arabia (3).
(While the KC-767AT has not yet operated as a tanker, four have been ordered by Italy and Japan has ordered four convertible freighter variants.)
Boeing has protested the tanker award and several members of Congress have declared that the foreign buy (1) would cost American jobs,(2) was possible only because of European governments subsidizing the aircrafts development, and (3) secret American technology would be lost. These issues dominate the debate as this blog is written.
Yes, American jobs will be lost. Boeing would have to work harder to sell more aircraft to compensate for the loss of tanker aircraft. Airbus, owned by EADS, and its American partner — Northrop Grumman — will assemble the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama, creating new jobs in what the firm calls “a new aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.” This could strengthen the overall U.S. aerospace base.
The argument that European nations, especially France, help pay for the lower-cost A330 is great. An aircraft that costs less for the same (or superior) performance is good for American taxpayers. We have previously procured foreign-developed and even foreign-built aircraft in the past-the British AV-8 Harrier, the French HU-25 Guardian and HH-65 Dolphin, and the Italian MH-68 Stingray; the U.S. services have also bought foreign-developed missiles, fire control systems, uniforms, and even ships. At the same time, foreign nations — often under “buy-back” agreements — use American-built aircraft, missiles, torpedoes, communications gear, and more. Indeed, the French Air Force flies Boeing-built KC-135 tankers as does Turkey and Singapore.
It is difficult to understand what “secret” American technology would be lost if the U.S. Air Force uses foreign-built tankers. Today the U.S. Air Force refuels foreign tactical aircraft, and the U.S. military aircraft regularly refuel from foreign tankers. And, the various services have regular personnel exchanges and share technical data on their tankers.
The KC-45 tanker buy will see the procurement of up to 179 aircraft for approximately $35 billion.
The Air Force selection used a “best value” determination to select a winner on the basis of mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price, and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Duncan J. McNabb, has said, “The tanker is the number one procurement priority for us right now.”
The new aircraft is needed. The competition was fair and transparent. For several reasons, the A330MRTT was the right selection. Time to move on.
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
Lest one forget: Boeing made America what it is. Remember the B-17? How many airmen owe their lives to getting back “on a wing and a prayer?” I flew and worked on KC-97′s, and KC-135′s. Who built the B-52′s? Do you think foreign aircraft would last through these extended life cycles? I think not. With 33 years of dedicated Air Force service I trust Boeing aircraft. Don’t turn your back on a company that made the USA a most dominant air power. I don’t recall one instance of a verticle stabilizer snapping off in flight on a Boeing A/C, AIRBUS had some resulting in loss of life. That’s only one case. I’m very familiar with the Gov’t “saving money.” Everytime my 135 was scheduled for PDM, a new contractor was chosen in the name of “saving money.” When the bird came home it was grounded longer than scheduled for extende maint. bscause the contractor made mistakes, didn’t follow program directives, etc., etc.. What little money saved in one instance, could cost you big time in other areas.
Wrong, we should buy the KC-45 because the Grumman Wildcat, Hellcat and Avenger won the Pacific war for America. And don’t forget the Northrup P-61 Black Widow, best night fighter of WWII. Don’t turn your back on Northrup Grumman!
/sarc
Lawrence Slagel wrote: “Do you think foreign aircraft would last through these extended life cycles?”
The US doesn’t have a monopoly of tough airframes with long lives:
English Electric Canberra (AKA the Martin B57 in US service) lasted 55 years in RAF service, so far the B52 has only made 52 years!
Plenty of Avro Lancasters made it home on 2 engines and half a tail!
Narrow, ill-informed and chauvanist opinons like yours are going to cost the USAF the best tanker in the world.
its a shame..its a damn shame.
America, the birthplace of aviation, having to go to Europe to buy aircraft because you can’t make them good or efficient enough.
Its a shame the process surrounding military procurement has become so bloated that something like this can happen. It must sting for you guys.
While I don’t necessarily believe that Boeing is in any way entitled to this contract, Norman, claming that “The competition was fair and transparent.” is utter horseshit and you know it.
In announcing that Northrop Grumman had won the bid, Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton stated unequivocally that there was constant, open communication between her group and the two competitors. Each side had a chance, through multiple steps, to protest or question anything that they felt was going awry in the process. Boeing accepted the playing field as it was and remained silent. In fact, company officials repeatedly praised the openness of the process. It was only after they lost that they found it to be unfair.
Now Boeing is protesting, thereby delaying even further a long overdue upgrade in the nation
although my expertise is in Lighter-than-air craft…I’m going to chip in on this. A previous post indicated that the European tanker had been BUILT AND TESTED; while Boeing only had plans. Now, I love Boeing….but,
“a bird in the hand”….you know the rest.
all said and done, I would offer that made all the difference.
Boeing is a multinational company whose interests don’t necessarily coincide with our nation. Not only is Northrop offering a newer design, but also more capital investment in the USA. Despite building the 767 over 25 years, and having pre-existing, albeit behind schedule, tanker orders, by 2013 Boeing could only deliver 19, while Northrop estimates delivering 49, 60% domestic content. The Northrop/airbus tanker adds up to 54% more domestic economic activity between now and 2013 than the Boeing offer.
Ok here’s the truth of the matter at hand. Boeing lost for many reasons in this. Among them are the longer range and larger capacity of the KC-45 over the KC-767. The KC-45 has had prototypes flying and had realistic tests whereas a signle KC-767 has not even completed production. The KC-45 also had a new boom design, one that also was tested and prooved to be superior to anything Boeing had available.
As for problems with Boeing aircraft, need I remind you of the litany of problems Boeing Aircraft have had in the civilian sector. Don’t forget, the aircraft both companies were pawing off to us was/is a commercial passenger airline when everything is cobbled together. If Boeing really wanted to fight this they should have brought out a different aircraft, quite possibly the 787 or even the 777 as the contract contestant. The 767 is an older aircraft design, the 787 and the 777 both have longer ranges than the 767, the 777 especially has a larger capacity than any model air refueler out there.
Lets also not forget that Boeing is not exactly on a hot streak for aircraft wins. Note the F-22 and the F-35 in that list, both made by the company that Boeing nashes its teeth to when it hears the name uttered, and that my friends is Lockheed. Lockheed has more combat aircraft homeruns including the p-38, the u-2, the sr-71, just to name a few.
I see a lot of comments here about who deserved what based on history, past contracts and location, but no one is discussing the mission capabilities of the respective aircraft.
Every time I hear that old, tired, and wrong refrain that the KC-45 has been built and the KC-767 hasn’t, I want to scream. This is backwards, pure and simple.
The KC-767 has eight examples in production now. Its dry connection to a USAF B-52 happened more than a year ago (http://www.deagel.com/news/Boeing-KC-767-Tanker-Completes-First-Contact-with-B-52-Bomber_n000001376.aspx). Its first midair refueling, also of a USAF B-52 (http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/03/08/boeing_tanker_passes_fuel_transport_test/5392/) occurred just about a year ago. Northrop’s managed to ground demonstrate their boom.
As for the ‘larger, with longer range’ schtick. Yes, that’s correct. It also won’t fit on the ramps of a lot of our forward bases like Al Udeid. Don’t get me wrong, if we’ve decided to invest in new ramp space and expansions at all of our foreign bases, great. But that’s a cost, not a small one, and it’s not factored into that whole argument about price. Hell, I bet the 747 or A380 would be even more economical to use on a per-pound-of-fuel-transfered basis. It’s just that there are physical limits to what you can fit on a flightline.
Go ahead and be pissed off that Boeing was gifting acquisitions officers with jobs. Every other company has and is doing it, but get pissed at them. Hell, the USAF is pissed at them because they got caught, and now there’s a lot of staff officers who don’t have easy ‘retirement policies’ into the companies they deal with due to legal changes put into place in the last few years. That’s the meat of this; Boeing got caught sneaking out to the Friday night party, and now everybody’s grounded.
But please don’t endlessly repeat the PR guff blown by Acquisitions and Airbus. It’s making my eyes hurt.
Personally I find it deliciously ironic that we are getting an airplane paid for in part with French tax payer money.
> I don’t recall one instance of a verticle stabilizer snapping off in flight on a Boeing A/C
i recall a huge chunk of fuselage ripping off a Hawaiian 737 and sucking a flight attendant out to her death
not saying that Airbus is perfect, but to pretend that only Boeing can build reliable planes just isn’t true
> The KC-767 has eight examples in production now.
those are NOT the same as the KC-767AT that Boeing is offering to the AF
the KC-767AT is based on the never built/never flown LRF model
> Its dry connection to a USAF B-52 happened more than a year ago
that’s not the same boom that they are offering to the AF
> Northrop’s managed to ground demonstrate their boom.
they (EADS) have now passed fuel in flight with their boom
http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail/15334/EADS_MTA_1st_In-Flight_Wet_Contact_of_its_ARBS_Successfull.htm
> (While the KC-767AT has not yet operated as a tanker, four have been ordered by Italy and Japan has ordered four convertible freighter variants.)
what Japan and Italy ordered IS NOT the KC-767AT
> (3) secret American technology would be lost.
which is absurd, EADS is only supplying the airframe and the boom
all the militarization is being done by NG
> the KC-767AT is based on the never built/never flown LRF model
Its interesting that folks like to point out this fact for Boeing, but they never mention the fact that EADS/NG has said that they will switch from the A330-200 to the A330-200F, which wont be delivered for another year.
> but they never mention the fact that EADS/NG has said that they will switch from the A330-200 to the A330-200F
they said they MIGHT switch, and that would be dependent on AF approval
they’re perfectly willing and able to go ahead with the current model
not to mention the 200F is much further along in development than the LRF
> they said they MIGHT switch,
Actually they said it was inevitable. Here’s a quote from the KC-30, now KC-45, manager
“
> an Airbus which is built in Europe, where it’s made using metric tools, metric fittings, screw threads
it might surprise you to know that Airbus does NOT use any metric fasteners
> What we will be losing is the knowledge base of actually building tanker aircraft.
hardly
tanker aircraft are based off (mostly) civilian aircraft and whether the life of the 767 line is extended another few years or not has absolutely zero impact on Boeing’s ‘knowledge base’ to build a new airliner
the navy spreads out contracts to keep 2 nuclear capable shipyards operational
there is no so such concern here
Boeing has a RECORD BACKLOG of new orders and is in absolutely zero danger of getting out of the airliner business if they lose this contract
if Boeing NEEDED this contract to stay afloat you might have a point, but they don’t and you don’t
> It’s about what is best for the country (OUR country), a product that fits the need, does the job, keeps Americans employed
sounds like you support the KC-30
it fits the need better than the KC-767AT
it does the job better than the KC-767AT
and it will result in MORE American jobs than the KC-767AT
there is ~15% difference in American content between the two bids, BUT if EADS/NG win they will ALSO assemble all A330-200Fs in Alabama (stealing that job away from the french)
plus once Airbus has a working assembly line in the US, they’re not likely to shut it down when the A330-200F production run finishes. They are desperate to move costs into the dollar zone and so it would make sense to more MORE assembly here.
The KC-30/45A will result in a long-term investment in America’s aviation infrastructure
> but I due wonder if the AF has looked at the risks associated with switching to the 200F.
they didn’t because that’s not what they proposed
> I think its odd that they bid one plane, but publicaly admit they want to use another plane later on.
they can ‘want to’ all they want, but they won’t be able to unless they convince the AF
they bid a modified 200, they will deliver a modified 200 unless granted permission to do otherwise
and the AF isn’t just going to give them permission to raise costs for no good reason
perhaps EADS will decide to eat the cost or perhaps they’ll end up staying with the 200
> they can ‘want to’ all they want, but they won’t be able to unless they convince the AF
Its not ‘Want to’ its inevitable. Or so they say. Dont you think thats odd?
“Do you think foreign aircraft would last through these extended life cycles? I think not.”
Yeah, funny how aircraft like the Vickers Vulcan and the Avro Shackleton were still in RAF service 40 years after their first flight, and how aircraft like the TU-95 and the TU-16 are still in service today. I guess those aircraft must have been built by Boeing as well.
> Its not ‘Want to’ its inevitable. Or so they say. Dont you think thats odd?
he didn’t say it is inevitable
he said he THINKS it’s inevitable
odd or not, it doesn’t matter what he thinks, only what he can convince the AF to go along with
perhaps saying that is an indication that they’re willing to eat the cost and they can’t imagine the AF turning down a more capable plane for the same price
but if the AF feels it’s too risky, they’ll do just that
again i say, it doesn’t matter what he ‘thinks’
lance d. logue,
The “only 19″ KC-767AT vs 49 KC-30 by 2013 is based on Boeing’s bid schedule being delayed by the KC-X evaluation team by 2 years. Boeing contends it can deliver the KC-767AT to the original schedule.
irtusk,
KC-X is a KC-135 replacement NOT a KC-10 replacement…
The KC-767AT fits the need better than the KC-30.
The KC-767AT does the job better than the KC-30.
When you use REAL WORLD conditions instead of manipulating model data (so that the KC-30 COULD be competative) that becomes abundantly clear.
NOBODY really knows how many jobs will be created/lost between the two.
Best assault rifle: not American
-Depends on how you define best. The AK-47 is a staple, but special operations across the western world use an American M-16 derivative.
Best tank: not american
-Last I checked the M1A2 is American. The Challenger II is tied with it.
Best IFV/APC: not even close
-I’ll give the nod to the Warrior.
Best AT weapon: not American
-Hellfire? American. TOW? American. Javelin? American.
Best Airdefense system: not American
-Aegis? American.
Best howitser: not American
-Probably not. Our guns have almost always been inferior in some way, but our employment has been superior.
Do i need to continue?
-You shouldn’t. You embarrass yourself.
> he said he THINKS it’s inevitable
Your right, Program managers/VP’s dont just say things like that without a good reason. Now do they?
> odd or not, it doesn’t matter what he thinks, only what he can convince the AF to go along with
Sure, but you could actually answer the question. Its a usefull line of thought. Of course its easy to make the AF go along with your wishes when you are the sole suplier.
Rarely mentioned:
1) The USAF tanker people have long established supply lines, contacts, and processes with Boeing. EADS does not. Not to mention that the NG/EADS duo thing may complicate this.
2) In the process of this, the US government will be help enabling EADS/Airbus in their efforts to build civilian A330 assembly plants in the US – thus helping a foreign company (partly owned by foreign governmetns) compete better in the US against America’s only civilian (and privately owned) aircraft company. This is a bit of an annoying side effect for many. I personally support this deal only if all foreign governments were to divest all their shares in EADS/Airbus and stop directly pouring money into their civilian programs (at least as directly as they’ve been doing…)
For Sale: a SIG 552 in well kept condition. reason for sale: inferior to a m-16.
Buy a hundred and i throw in a BIL agtm system, a Leopard 2A6, some Merkavas and a S-300 airdefense sytem.
I think that all of the metrics are balogne and the procurement team simply looked at politics. They are picking the larger aircraft, because they know that Congress will inevitably cut the procurement target well below what the USAF needs.
Eventually the Air Force would like to replace all 600 or so tankers. What is the actual likely hood of Congress approving this over the next 20 years, given parallel procurement of the 2018 bomber, F-35, etc.
If congress cuts off the KC-X program at say, 400 tankers, and the military had chosen the smaller 767 tanker, the AF would he royally screwed. With the A330, they would only badly screwed.
I had a similar suspicion with the CSAR-X decision, the military is simply afraid they will not get the numbers of aircraft they need, so they go with the craft with longest range and capability.
PFCEM,
Bottomline…Boeing DID accept the playing field and in doing so made certain assumptions that were incorrect which lead to them losing the proposal.
For the benefit of the warfighter we need to move forward get them what the Air Force felt was the best plane
One concern one could have about Air Force Tankers partially assembled/tested/finalized in former East Germany is that the work force there may not be as carefully scrutinized re security concerns as compared to the whole process taking place in the United States, but maybe this is a non-issue.
Unlike Irtusk and a few others, pfcern is the one that make the simplest and most sense and has the greatest unadulterated basis. Being an engineer, I assert and maintain that what he says is NOT Boeing propaganda but has a sound logistical and engineering basis. Further, if and when future war happens with the EU, the US will be screwed for not buying domestically when Airbus, as the war’s enemy, cuts all supply. (And I work for one of Boeing’s competitors.)
@ WR: a future war between u.s. and eu? i dunno what u take but take less!
im sure u.s. airforce has good reasons to chose airbus over boeing: airforce wants airbus because its the better plane (tanker can be converted into freighter) with more value for taxmoney and it will be build on american soil by u.s. workers: sounds like a win-win-situation to me… and dont cry for boeing, the 787 dreamliner is a winner…
“You’ll have to run two tool kits at all bases and all mobility kits,”
Oh gee, the Air Force has NEVER had more than one type of fighter at the same time… or more than one type of bomber… or more than one type of tanker… or more than one type of cargo aircraft… they just don’t know how to do that! Too hard, unthinkable!
“Again Airbus aircraft will be built using the metric measurement system, so this will lead to all kinds of problems, accidents and maybe deaths, because someone messed up and selected a wrong size/measurement, also this will increase the supply inventory.”
Gee, then this deadly threat also exists for the 767, which is partly built in Italy and Japan (both of which use the metric system).
How often do we hear of commercial airliners crashing because the airline in question has a mixed fleets of Boeing and Airbus aircraft, as many airlines do, and mixed up metric and english parts? Answer, never, because this problem simply does not exist. How often do we hear of Boeing aircraft – which have many, many European and Asian-built components – crashing because of a mixup between the metric and the english system? Again, never, because this “problem” is a bunch of baloney.
“do you really image that the parts will be shipped over and then 10,000s of American workers will build an aircraft, or what the reality will be is it will be built overseas, by other nations citizens and then flown over (maybe “green”) and American workers will put the FINISHING touches on the aircraft. ”
That “reality” is precisely how Boeing intends to build the 787 and all its future commercial aircraft. But now Boeing wants to wrap itself in the American flag and tell us to “buy American”. What amazing hypocrisy!
“when there is an American system/platform which meets &/or exceeds all criteria (& in fact is arguably superior to any foreign system/platform)…”
The 767 is clearly NOT superior to any foreign system / platform! It is a piece of garbage from the 1970s, not some brand new cutting-edge technology, fer chrissake.
“the US government will be help enabling EADS/Airbus in their efforts to build civilian A330 assembly plants in the US – thus helping a foreign company (partly owned by foreign governmetns) compete better in the US against America’s only civilian (and privately owned) aircraft company.”
Boeing outsources a lot of its production to Japan and China, where the aviation industries are either government-owned or heavily government-subsidized, so it is entirely disingenuous to represent Boeing as a “privately-owned company” not beholden to any foreign government. For example, the Japanese government covered about half of the costs of developing parts built by the Japanese companies for the Boeing 767, and the Japanese government spent ~$500 million to help Japanese companies develop parts for the 777. Boeing is even more beholden to foreign governments for support in building the 787. So, when the US government buys the 767, it is helping Japanese industries compete better against American industries.
“if and when future war happens with the EU, the US will be screwed for not buying domestically when Airbus, as the war’s enemy, cuts all supply. (And I work for one of Boeing’s competitors.)”
ROFLMAO!!! What a preposterous scenario. Hey, you realize we won’t be able to use the F-35, either, since those aircraft are going to have a significant European content? And you realize we will also be screwed on parts for our Boeing aircraft, since Boeing buys billions of dollars worth of parts from Europe every year?
ST. LOUIS,– While the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract to build the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), Air Force evaluators found the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker offers more mission capability and has a better chance of surviving combat than the larger Northrop-EADS KC-30 tanker.
————————————————–
So now they are saying that a 767 is better at surviving COMBAT than an A330 – well gee lets look at all the tankers that have been shot down.ever.
Christopher Lozaga,
The KC-767AT is a superior KC-135 replacement to the KC-30. The KC-767AT can operate from smaller airfields closer to the action which combined with its significatnly better “fuel mileage” negates & even reverses the KC-30 fuel capacity advantage.
The only real advantage the KC-30 has is in cargo capacity which IS NOT the primary job of a tanker. But even as a cargo carrier the KC-767AT is a major improvement over the KC-135.
KC-135
080 passengers
024 patients
006 463L pallets
KC-767AT
190 passengers (= 2.375 KC-135)
108 patients (= 4.5 KC-135)
019 463L pallets (= 3.17 KC-135)
The KC-X is SUPPOSED to be a tanker which is sometimes used to cary some cargo NOT a cargo carrier that is sometimes used as a tanker…
***
pas,
For the benefit of the warfighter we need get politics out of defence procurement to get them what the Air Force felt was the best plane – the KC-767. :)
“The only real advantage the KC-30 has is in cargo capacity which IS NOT the primary job of a tanker.”
The real advantage of the KC-30 is in range offload – how much fuel it can offload a given distance from its base. The KC-30 is FAR better than the KC-767 at this, and this IS the primary job of a tanker. The KC-30 also has a better overall endurance, meaning it can fly to its refueling orbit and loiter there for longer than the KC-767. Better overall endurance also means the KC-30 is better at escorting fighters across the ocean than the KC-767 (which would have to be refueled itself more often than the KC-30 in this role) and also better at refueling strategic bombers and strategic airlift on long-range missions.
You say the KC-767AT can operate from smaller airfields closer to the action. That is not necessarily an advantage – you want to put short-range tactical aircraft (fighters, A-10s) close to the action, not tankers. This is especially true in places like the Middle East where basing is limited close to the action. A tanker that can operate from more distant bases is more flexible (you don’t HAVE to put it forward) and thus more desirable in a lot of scenarios. Also, as I said, there are a lot of scenarios (refueling long-range bomber and strategic airlift missions, escorting fighters across the ocean) where the range advantage of the KC-330 over the KC-767 is critically important.
Last but not least, the ability of the KC-767 to operate from smaller bases does NOT, in fact, “negate or reverse the KC-30 fuel capacity advantage”. The KC-30 is just not so much larger than the KC-767 that this would be true. The KC-330 would be able to refuel more fighters per day than the KC-767, even when operating from more distant bases.
> . The KC-767AT can operate from smaller airfields closer to the action
in fact this is often NOT TRUE
namely its takeoff performance SUCKS
and thus needs a long runway that often isn’t available
JJ,
You are WAY off the mark. The KC-30 is not THAT much better than the KC-767AT at unloading fuel at a given range. In a oversimplitic 1-vs-1 comparison from a base which both can operate with max fuel the difference while not insignificant is not HUGE & the lbs of fuel difference actually SHRINKS as distance increases due to the KC-30′s higher fuel consumption). But when you look at how tankers are actually employed in operations that comparision is only one of MANY factors.
The KC-30 DOES NOT have greater indurance. It carries more fuel but also burns more fuel. Commercial 767-200ER with ~160,000 lbs/24,000 gal of fuel has essentially the same range (various sources give different numbers but they are within 2.5%) as the commercial A330-200 with ~245,000 lbs/36,750 gal of fuel. The KC-767AT carries more than 200,000 lbs/30,000 gal of fuel…
Some more interesting facts. Average fuel offload per sortie. One thing to keep in mind is that the KC-135s need to be replaced because they are old & worn out, NOT because they can not offload enough fuel…
Operation Desert Storm: 47,500 lbs
Operation Allied Force: 48,700 lbs
Operation Enduring Freedom: 75,400 lbs
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 60,800 lbs
Yes operating from smaller airfields is a HUGE advantage. It is the tanker that can operate from smaller airfields which is more flexible because it can not only operate from larger airfields but it can operate from smaller airfields also. Operating from smaller airfields closer to action saves HUGE amounts of fuel & time… And it is not just being able to operate from smaller airfields but also being able to operate in larger numbers (or taking up less space) at any given airfield.
Yes the operating from closer airfields & consuming less fuel DOES negate or reverse fuel capacity advantage. The fuel offload difference between the KC-767AT & KC-30 is not THAT big to begin with (we are not talking KC-135 vs KC-10 here) & it get SMALLER the longer they are in the air. To see how fuel consumption makes a difference just compare the KC-135R to the KC-135A (yes the R carries a bit more fuel than the A but it can offload MORE than just the capacity increase). For distance take a look at the fuel offload at range for ANY tanker & see how greater range effects how much fuel can be offloaded.
> The KC-30 DOES NOT have greater indurance.
bald face LIE
> It is the tanker that can operate from smaller
> airfields which is more flexible because it can
> not only operate from larger airfields but it can
> operate from smaller airfields also
advantage KC-30 which can fly out of shorter fields
irtusk,
Get your facts straight. BOTH the USAF & NG/EADS have indicated that the KC-767AT can take-off from a 7000′ runway with a full load of fuel.
No doubt you are just ignorant & have no desire to discover the truth because it would debunk your precious (although incorrect) argument. But I will enlighten you. The “ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8000-foot runway” comes from an old USAF requirement. Even the KC-767 Tanker Transport Aircraft (essentially a 767-200ER with an auxiliary fuel tank to bring total fuel capacity up from ~160,000 lbs/24,000 gal to ~202,000 lbs/30,150 gal & became the KC-767A for Italy & Japan) exceeded that requirement (but would not quite meet the 7000′ KC-X objective) & as I know you are fully aware the KC-767AT Boeing proposed for the KC-X contract is not the same aircraft. It has higher lift wings/flaps & engines with greater thrust.
> BOTH the USAF & NG/EADS have indicated that the
> KC-767AT can take-off from a 7000′ runway with a
> full load of fuel.
link please?
> The “ability to take off at near maximum gross
> weights from an 8000-foot runway” comes from an
> old USAF requirement
do you have any, ah, evidence to support this claim?
the Boeing page seems fairly straightforward:
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”
a plain reading indicates that that is it’s capability
if you have some evidence to the contrary, by all means please share
irtusk,
It helps to realize that the program to replace the KC-135s has been around since BEFORE 2006.
It is unfortunate that people working on public websites don’t even take the time to use updated information.
That is the thing about getting your information from the internet (actually just about any source). You really SHOULD check the facts for yourself.
As I said, “The ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway” is an old (as in 20th century/Cold War) USAF (actually NATO “standard runway”) requirement. It was used as the basis of the previous tanker lease requirements & unfortunately even many “Boeing sources” still use the old requirement data.
The KC-767AT met or exceeded all performance criteria so it therefor MUST has met or exceeded the 7000′ runway requirement…
> That is the thing about getting your information from the internet (actually just about any source). You really SHOULD check the facts for yourself.
and where should i check the facts?
boeing’s site seems like a fairly official source, no?
> unfortunately even many
> “Boeing sources” still use the old requirement
> data.
so what you’re saying is that you have absolutely zero evidence that the KC-767AT can takeoff at MTOW from a 7000′ runway
you said both the USAF & NG/EADS have said that it could, all i’m looking for is a reference to where they said it
> The KC-767AT met or exceeded all performance
> criteria so it therefor MUST has met or exceeded
> the 7000′ runway requirement…
lol, now i see where you’re coming from
is that what’s been confusing you this whole time?
well let me clarify
from the SRD:
3.2.1.1.4.1 – The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 – The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.
as you can see the only requirement is that it can takeoff in 7000′
sure the KC-767AT can do that . . . when it’s empty
so yes it meets the requirement
the objective is that it can takeoff in 7000′ at MTOW and so far i have seen zero evidence that it can do such a thing
RE: See Figure 3.1 from the SRD: the THRESHOLD (3.2.1.1.1.1) for Fuel Offload vs. Radius Range runs from 117,000 lbs @ 500nm to 20,000 lbs @ 2500nm. The OBJECTIVE (3.2.1.1.1.2) is simply to exceed that. Clearly that is an indication for the desire for a “medium” tanker as opposed to a “large” tanker or the THRESHOLD would have been higher (both lbs & distance) & an indication of some desired OBJECTIVE even higher would have been indicated.
In laymens terms THRESHOLD is the MINIMUM requirement & OBJECTIVE is the MAXIMUM requirement. In other words the THRESHOLD is the MINIMUM being asked for & the OBJECTIVE is the MAXIMUM hoped for. Just one of the many things which makes the KC-X RFP/SRD rather odd is that typically the THRESHOLD is something believed to be obtainable & the OBJECTIVE is more of a “pie in the sky” that is quite difficult to achieve. But with the KC-X BOTH teams handily exceeded the Fuel Offload vs. Radius Range THRESHOLD (which everyone who knew anything about it knew they would) & the OBJECTIVE was in essence not even give since it was simply to exceed the THRESHOLD. The RFP/SRD is also VERY vague about airlift capability (cargo capacity) as well.
————-
Geez,
Your unfamiliarity with aircraft design principles, RFPs, and contracting in general is glaring, and you obviously didn
Boeing will limit its hiring of local engineers for design of the 747-8, the new derivative of its iconic jumbo jet, and give a major role to engineers at Boeing’s Moscow Design Center and at outside suppliers.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003034046_boeing02.html?syndication=rss
————————————————–
So , Boeing , that all-american company , is hiring red russian engineers to design its all new aircraft.
oh how ironic given there arguement that the KC-767` is an all american tanker….
irtusk,
The KC-767AT met or exceeded all performance criteria. Among the performance criteria…
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.
Even NG/EADS’s BS “spider chart” CLEARY shows that the KC-767 could take-off from a 7000′ runway with 202,000 lbs of fuel.
Besides your whole focus on runway length just continues to show you don’t know what you are talking about. Runway length is not/would not be an issue for EITHER the KC-30 or KC-767AT. Tarmac strength, ramp/parking space & other such infrastucture limitations WILL.
irtusk,
Yes I acknowledge that the Global Airfield Availability “spider chart” is flawed/innaccurate/misleading. I only mentioned it as “proof” that even NG/EADS acknowledges that the KC-767 can operaate from a 7000′ runway with 202,000 lbs of fuel.
Other studies (ones that use REAL WORLD data) found more-or-less the opposite numbers for the number of bases the KC-767AT & KC-30 could use…
The BS claim is that the A330 killed the 767 yet the 767 sold JUST AS WELL as the A330 (both selling an average of ~40 per year for a DECADE). That is the fact & it debunks the BS claim. If the A330 had killed the 767 then 767 sales would not have remained steady at a rate ~equal to what it had sold prior to the 1990-1992 peak.
“You are hopeless. You need to get your facts straight.”
The hopeless person is the one who gets his “facts” straight from Boeing. =D
“Funny how you consider the fuel capacity/offload difference to be “HUGE” yet the fuel economy difference is “not significant” when as a % they are quite close…”
Not funny at all, since I do not accept the lying Boeing claim about A330 fuel efficiency.
“The 767-200ER is 24% more fuel efficient than the A330-200… THOSE ARE AIRLINE INDUSTRY FACTS!”
Nope, that is a Boeing lie. Here is an airline industry fact:
http://www.aviation.com/business/071130-hawaiian-airbus-service-plans.html
“Mark Dunkerley, Hawaiian Airlines’ CEO…. said Hawaiian’s A330-200s and A350-800s would offer higher seat capacity, better fuel-efficiency, lower seat-mile costs and longer range than the airline’s 767-300ERs.”
Think an airline CEO does his homework? Think he knows more than you about cost effectiveness and fuel efficiency?
“Carring more “stuff” does not translate to greater endurance.”
Are you really this ignorant? Payload and endurance trade against each other. The A330 can fly a much greater payload over the same range as the 767, and thus the A330 can fly the same payload as the 767 over a much greater range. However, the A330 in fact has a longer range, as the Hawaiian CEO said.
“For airlines it is not about lbs of fuel per hour as BUT total operational costs PER PASSENGER.”
For the A330 this is number is LESS than for the 767!
“The A330-200 DID NOT kill the 767 commercially.”
Yes, it did. Boeing’s own paper says so!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272256_tankerupdate01.html
“The newer A330-200 has clobbered Boeing’s 767 in commercial sales and will remain in production for some time.”
And I see Irtusk has found some other good quotes.
“In fact between 1995 & 2005 the same number (375) of 767 were delivered as A330.”
You want to look at the order backlog for each aircraft, chief. A330 backlog, over 400 planes, 767 backlog, a handful.
“And again you are still neglecting to take into account how tankers are actually employed in operations.”
My friend, that is exactly what you are doing. I’ve said enough about this already, I’m not going to repeat myself, however many times you do. Your claim that the A330′s larger range offload is “essentially a null factor” is simply ridiculous.
“Due to is smaller size & lower weight, the KC-767AT WILL be able to operate from bases closer to refueling points.”
Look at ANY military operation in the past 20 years, and tell me how many KC-135s were based close to the fight, and how many were based far away. In every case, the majority of the KC-135s were based far away because they wanted to put fighters close.
“The fuel offload difference SHRINKS to just 6% when the KC-767AT operates 500nm away but the KC-30 HAS to operate 1000nm away.”
The KC-30 will not HAVE to operate 1000nm away. It can get as close to the fight as the KC-767. The only issue is HOW MANY can get closer, and the KC-767 has a minor advantage in number per base. The superior offload capability of the KC-30 easily negates this advantage.
“Or in order for the KC-30 to operate from the same base as the KC-767 it HAS to carry LESS fuel than the KC-767AT.”
Flat out wrong.
“Tanker have been put back historically because they needed a 10,000+’ (~8000 for the KC-135R) runway!”
Also flat out wrong. They have been put back historically because there was a more urgent need, in every real-world case, to put more fighters and short-range aircraft forward instead of tankers.
Your flailing is pretty amusing. There is literally NO conceivable real-world scenario where the KC-767 would be able to operate from 500nm away but the KC-30 would have to operate from 1000nm away. You are truly desperate if that’s your best line of argument.
irtusk,
TRS-05/MCS-05, RAND & a study commissioned by Boeing all indicate that a KC-767 or similar size/weight tanker can operate from MANY more airfields (potential tanker bases) that the KC-30 or similar size/weight tanker.
Here is a link to someone OTHER THAN Boeing who has leanered the TRUTH about the flaws of the IFARA computer model.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25851
I am not saying that the A330 did not CONTRIBUTE TO the decline of the 767 but it DID NOT kill the 767. The fact is it was the evolution of the market which REALLY leand to the “demise” of the 767 just as it did for the 757.
IF there were not A330 then the demands of the market would have “created” an A330 equivalent. The 767-300 & 767-400 would no doubt have sold more & the proposed 777-100 would most likely have beed developed to fill the niche the A330 filled – not to mention that Airbus WOULD (if it wanted to stay in business) have introduced SOMETHING similar to the A330.
First delivery: A330-300 December 30, 1993 to Air Inter.
Anticipation of the 787 has done more to “kill” the 767 in more recent years that the A330 could ever dream of.
JJ,
I don’t get my information from Boeing BUT as I have indicated before I can’t help it if Boeing information coinsides with mine. Perhaps you should write Boeing & tell them to stop getting all their information from me. ;)
It is the PUBLISHED airline industry data which states that the 767-200ER burns 24% less fuel than the A330-200. Boeing go it from Conklin & de Decker, an independent aviation research company…
Don’t confuse the 767-300ER with the 767-200ER. Although I would not put it past someone like you to PURPOSELY compare the wrong aircraft to try & fool people into believing YOUR LIES. The 767-300ER & 767-400ER trade range for greater capacity. The 767-200ER can fly ANYWHERE the A330-200 can. In fact, do a search for “twinjet world distance record” & you will find records set (several times) by the 767-200ER that were later broken by the 777-200LR (no record for the A330-200).
Stop fooling yourself that the NG/EADS CMARPS program with all the inaccurate data & assumptions it used JUST SO THE KC-30 COULD BE COMPETATIVE got it right but other studies (using REAL WORLD data) over the past decade or so got it wrong.
You obviously don’t know how tankers actually operate or else you would not continue your foolish BS 1-vs-1 comparision &/or that the KC-30′s ~20% greater capacity is a huge advantage.
> TRS-05/MCS-05
1. ‘conveniently’ these are classified so who knows what they actually say
2. this was done in 2000 before the center-line landing gear was added
> RAND
um, which RAND study?
closest i can find is:
http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf
“the parking area required differs among alternatives
by about 30 percent, depending on the theater scenario. How much
to weigh this characteristic in choosing among alternatives is a
matter of military judgment.”
> a study commissioned by Boeing
where is this study? can we examine it?
irtusk,
Sorry but I am not doing your research for you since you claim to be so informed. The conclusions of the TRS-05/MCS-05, RAND & Boeing commissioned study are all public & unlike the the NG/EADS CMARPS program none of them are KNOWN to have used inaccurate data/assumptions. ;)
It is truly pathetic how you disreguard information provided by/from people who were there (aka at the meeting/debreifing) simply because it contradicts your BS.
I also LOVE how you continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the airline industry/market works.
> Sorry but I am not doing your research for you since you claim to be so informed
nope, i can only go by what i’ve seen
‘not doing your research’ sounds a lot like ‘they don’t exactly back up my position like i claim’
yes the numbers Boeing claims are public, but anything about methodology certainly isn’t
> It is truly pathetic how you disreguard information provided by/from people who were there
EXCEPT YOU DON’T FREAKING PROVIDE IT
you just wave your hands and say ‘obviously you’re wrong’
i’ve looked for them, i can’t find them, obviously you know where they are, please provide some links so we can move on instead of trading insults back and forth
> also LOVE how you continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the airline industry/market works.
you keep confusing the issue with this red herring
disagreeing about a factual matter (where one side refuses to provide their evidence) has nothing to do with understanding ‘how the industry/market works’
and while we’re at it
> none of them are KNOWN to have used inaccurate data/assumptions
there is a difference between what Boeing CLAIMS and what we KNOW
we KNOW they claimed 4 things were wrong and we KNOW they were WRONG on at least 2 of them
the other 2 are pending explanation
irtusk,
YOU are the one confusing the issue with red herrings! How A330 airliners sell/have sold vs 767 airliners sell/have sold says NOTHING about their respective merits as military tankers or even as airliners. Despite what ignorant people like yourself WANT people to believe they ARE NOT in the same class (253/293/380 passengers vs 181/224/255).
Boeing claims MANY things are wrong with the NG/EADS CMARPS model. Note that the public “summary” version of the Boeing protest states “Among other changes, the reviced model:” then lists FIVE changes made to the model. Two of those five are questionable (aka can be “reasoned” away sufficiently to satisfy the ignorant such as yourself) & the other three are COMPLETELY unrealistic (unless the KC-X program is to include untold $billions in infrastructure improvemnts around the world which would still only PARTAILLY address them). The Air Forces said that these changes were “necesary in order for the larger KC-30 to even complete the mission scenarios specified.”
I am surprised nobody picked up on this but I have actually provided a link to an article from SOMEBODY OTHER THAN BOEING that appears to explain how/why for some of the “changes”. That is for all the complexity of the NG/EADS CMARPS model, it was in fact NOT COMPLEX ENOUGH! “The IFARA computer model could only accept one variable on the issue of airfield capability” & “the Air Force rounded up the data on each airfield
> YOU are the one confusing the issue with red herrings! How A330
> airliners sell/have sold vs 767 airliners sell/have sold says
> NOTHING about their respective merits as military tankers or even as airliners
you sure spent a lot of time arguing about that ‘red herring’
> I am surprised nobody picked up on this but I have actually provided
> a link to an article from SOMEBODY OTHER THAN BOEING that appears
> to explain how/why for some of the “changes”
i’m surprised you didn’t see my reply that it was obvious he was regurgitating the information straight from Boeing
> Two of those five are questionable (aka can be “reasoned” away
> sufficiently to satisfy the ignorant such as yourself)
1. if the GAO rejects those claim will you call them ‘ignorant’ too?
2. if we’re ignorant, please illuminate us with your knowledge, why aren’t their explanations credible?
3. those 2 SOUNDED compelling too . . . until I heard the explanation
hence my hesitation in putting too much weight in the others that also SOUND compelling until I get the full story
PS- STILL waiting for your link to the conclusions of TRS-05/MCS-05, the RAND study and the methodology of the Boeing study
irtusk,
If KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself would stop lying about the A330-200 “killing” the 767-200 & (even if it were true) that somehow proves it is superior then I would not have to continue to set the record straight as to the truth of the matter.
It would also help if you would actually do some research &/or even read what has already been linked to. A) Mr. Babbin said “I learned in a Capitol Hill meeting earlier this week.” THAT DOES NOT MEAN BOEING. B) Even IF the information came (directly or indirectly) from Boeing THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT UNTRUE.
***
Due to the fire hazards associated with hot defueling op-erations, the preferred distance between aircraft wingtips is 50 feet. However, at those installations where aircraft parking space is limited, therefore not permitting a 50 foot wing tip clearance, the wing tip separation distance can be reduced to a minimum of 35 feet. Whenever adistance of less than 50 feet is maintained between aircraft, wing tips a crash fire rescue vehicle must be at the aircraft during hot defueling operations. [That is a MINIMUM of 35' not 25']
RFP Parking Ramp Rules
25 ft wingtip clearance while parked
30 ft wing tip clearance on the interior taxiway
50 ft wingtip clearance on the peripheral taxiway
NG/EADS CMARPS model used 25 for ALL [That is not accurate/realistic]
Same with tarmac stength, the NG/EADS CMARPS model used the STRONGEST tarmac at the base as the strength of tarmac for the ENTIRE base – thus allowing the larger & heavier KC-30 to FULLY operate at bases where it could not in reality do so.
***
On turnaround time…someone as ignorant as you is easily fooled by the USAF “explination” but the reality is that during high tempo operations (when turnaround time is MOST important) ALL aircraft (tanker or otherwise) are turned around as quickly as possible so many/most of the “other factors” are negated/dealt with in such a way that for tankers, the time to fuel the aircraft is THE most time consuming.
***
TRS-05 concluded that to meet the National Military Strategy, DoD required 500-600 KC-135R equivalents, with an 85% Mission Capable Rate, and 900-1,000 aircrews, for a crew ratio of 1.66 crews per aircraft to1.92 aircrews per aircraft.
The Mobility Capabilities Study reportedly recommended theacquisition of 520 – 640 KC-135R model equivalents.
irtusk,
There are HUNDREDS of people on capital hill that are prevy to information about the KC-X program/decision that the public is not (& the VAST MAJORITY of them have NO affiliation directly or indirectly with Boeing). But since you are a KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinker you automatically assume anything “pro KC-767/Boeing” is Boeing propaganda (yet not amazingly readily accept anything “pro NG/EADS/KC-30″ – even AFTER it has been shown to be FALSE).
The NG/EADS CMARPS model could only accept one variable. Thus the use of 25′ distance (which was itself a change from reality/normal procedure) ALL AROUND (& the use of the strongest tarmac to an ENTIRE base & the “fixed” turnaround time) when in reality it is only 25′ when defueled & parked (aka non-operational), in ALL other instances the distance is greater. There is a contingency which allows (when they HAVE to due to limited space but then additional safety vehicles & protocals MUST be used) a reduction from 50′ to 35′ (NOT 25′).
I NEVER said TRS-05, MCS-05 or the RAND studies said ANYTHING directly about the KC-767 vs KC-30 (quit misrepresenting what I have posted). But they ALL did indicate that smaller/lighter aircraft can operate from more airfields (& in greater numbers) than larger/heavier aircraft. THE most important thing to come out of TRS-05/MCS-05 (in terms of KC-767 vs KC-30) was “KC-135R equvalent” rather than “KC-10A equivalent” & that for MANY tanker operations/scenarios a KC-135R tanker force is SUPERIOR to a KC-10A tanker force DESPITE the KC-10A’s MUCH greater capacity. ;) AKA when the USAF conducted studies on its own (in 2000) WITHOUT political interference it found that MEDIUM (KC-135R equvalent) tankers, not LARGE (KC-10A equivalent) tanker, is what it needed.
Also keep in mind that as a cargo hauler the KC-767 is a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the KC-135.
passengers = 2.375 KC-135
patients = 4.5 KC-135
463L pallets = 3.17 KC-135
As I have said before, the USAF is looking to replace its KC-135s NOT because of a lack of capacity of the KC-135 (in fact even the KC-135′s full capacity is not used much of the time) but because they are old & worn out (aka we can not keep operating them forever) & we “need” to start replacing them soon so that they can ALL be replaced by ~2040.
irtusk,
No the burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one who claims that Mr. Babbin attended a meeting with Boeing when there is NO indication that it was meeting with Boeing. If the meeting was with Boeing Mr. Babbin would have likely said it was. Not indicating who the meeting was with in his article IS NOT the same a refusing to…
I never said you said must be Boeing. I said because you are a KC-30/NG/EADS Kool-Aid drinker you (consciously or unconsciously) ASSUME it does despite NO evidence that indicate so.
The NG/EADS CMARPS model alterations to reality ARE unrealistic. It is unfortunate that you are so ignorant as to not realize/understand that.
Stop lying about the KC-767AT take-off performance. It meet or exceeded the requirement to take-off from a 7000′ runway. Even the “basic” KC-767A (lower thrust & less lift) procured by Italy & Japan meets the THRESHOLD & ALMOST meets the OBJECTIVE.
The point is that the KC-767AT meets or exceeds ALL requirements & when you use REAL WORLD data/comnditions to evaltuate the relative capabilites of the KC-767AT & KC-30 to perform REAL WORLD tanker missions/scenarios, the KC-767AT it the better KC-135 replacement. Greater capacity DOES NOT necessarily mean better – there ARE other factors.
I see you don’t undersatd computer simulation programs either. ;)
> YOU are the one who claims that Mr. Babbin attended a meeting with Boeing
STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID
i said that you can’t claim it was a source other than Boeing
you don’t know who the source was, hence that that is an invalid/DISHONEST claim to make
> I never said you said must be Boeing
you capability to deny the obvious is truly astounding
let me refresh your memory (for about the 6th time this thread)
> Here is a link to someone OTHER THAN Boeing
i see no hedging, just a very simple clear claim that it was NOT Boeing
and once again, that is a claim you are not in a position to make
> If the meeting was with Boeing Mr. Babbin would have likely said it was.
that’s some good stuff you’re on
> Not indicating who the meeting was with in his article IS NOT the same a refusing to..
it’s not like he ‘overlooked’ or ‘forgot’ to mention who the meeting was with
it was a very deliberate obfuscation, which means . . . drumroll please . . . he REFUSED to identify who sponsored the meeting
> The NG/EADS CMARPS model alterations to reality ARE unrealistic. It is unfortunate that you are so
> ignorant as to not realize/understand that.
it’s unfortunate you can’t offer any evidence besides your word (which keeps becoming less and less credible).
> The point is that the KC-767AT meets or exceeds ALL requirements
no, the point is that the KC-30 meets or exceeds them by even more
> I see you don’t undersatd computer simulation programs either. ;)
i understand that if you run a computer program with the exact same input you will get the exact same output every single time (excepting some strike by a cosmic ray)
if you say multiple runs didn’t generate the same result, that is only because the inputs weren’t exactly the same
computers are deterministic
if you know the inputs you know the outputs
even a random number generator is deterministic
hence why they’re called PSEUDO random number generators
if you could actually create a non-deterministic program you would win a nobel prize
> I never said you said must be Boeing
ok, i took a second look at what you were saying, and . . .
i’m not really sure wtf you are saying
any possible interpretation i can come up with is so ludicrously wrong i can’t imagine that even you would say it
irtusk,
It was an article written by Jed Babbin after a CAPITAL HILL meeting he attended. There is ZERO indication that the meeting was with Boeing OR that the information that came out of the meeting was sourced from Boeing (aside from specific points where Mr. Babbin SPECIFICALLY cited Boeing as the source – he also SPECIFICALLY cited NG/EADS as the source on specific points).
The KC-30 DOES NOT meet or exceed all requirements by more than the KC-767AT! It has greater fuel & cargo capacity BUT in REAL WORLD situations it does not necessarily have greater capability.
You DO NOT understand computer simulation programs! They DO NOT give the same result every time. We are not talking about some simple logic circuit but a VERY complex (yet not complex enough – aka not enough variabls to accurately represent reality) computer model.
> It was an article written by Jed Babbin after a CAPITAL HILL
> meeting he attended. There is ZERO indication that the meeting
> was with Boeing OR that the information that came out of the
> meeting was sourced from Boeing
let us review the ‘discussion’ so far
you: here’s info from someone OTHER THAN BOEING
me: you can’t say that since you don’t know who it was from
you: there’s no proof it was Boeing
me: i didn’t say it was Boeing, i said you can’t say it was someone other than Boeing
you: there’s no proof it was Boeing
me: i realize that. there is also no proof it wasn’t Boeing
you: there’s no proof it was Boeing
me: . . .
> The KC-30 DOES NOT meet or exceed all requirements by more than the KC-767AT!
that’s funny, the AF found otherwise
> You DO NOT understand computer simulation programs!
> They DO NOT give the same result every time.
if you have found a non-deterministic program, go claim your Nobel prize
granted very small, seemingly insignificant differences can result in large differences in output
but if all the inputs are exactly the same, the program MUST return the same result
anything else would violate all basic tentants of computer science