Comments on: An Objective View of Tankers?

By: irtusk

irtusk — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:06:19 +0000

> 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

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:05:50 +0000

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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:37:37 +0000

> 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

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:19:59 +0000

> 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

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:17:53 +0000

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. ;)

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:53:19 +0000

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.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:20:15 +0000

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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:26:32 +0000

> 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

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:14:23 +0000

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

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:32:43 +0000

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