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.
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,
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.
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.
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