This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Huh. Funny how the usual crowd of EADS apologists hasn’t stepped up with even one cogent critique of this GAO decision. Is anyone else piecing together the redacted portions around page 40–45? It looks like one of the small issues with the Airbus offering was that in the event of a refueling problem with certain extremely fast USAF aircraft, the KC-30/45 would have to retract the boom and simultaneously dive in order to get clear of a midair collision. ‘I’ll take hurtling flamey ball of death for $108 billion, Alex.’
Rix, You aren’t suppose to know. If you did you could propably figure out for yourself that progams chosen for “past performance” evaluation where chosen for a reason OTHER THAN to actully gauge the likely performance of the two offeres…
RE 1: Sorry but it is the GOA quoting the USAF, Boeing just happend to make it public. RE 2: By the way Mac, lets us all know when you get to the part where the GOA explains why they chose to side one way on the inconsistent/contradictory threshold/objective vs ‘trade-space’ factor of the RFP… 1. I’ll let anyone who wants to read the GAO doc decide what it says instead of misstating it as you did. Really, there’s not enogh time in the day to 2. No Problem, Mon!
People ignoring what is maybe a minor detail but still, with budgetary problems these days — the 36% cost growth factor in the engines for boeing’s proposal? What else is going to spiral out of boeing’s proposed budget costs with regards to its decades old aircraft? Boeing’s argument is by no means watertight, and it still appears to me as if EADS should be given the contract.
Ross, Enough of the BS about the KC-767AT being an old aircraft! In fact it would be MORE correct to say that the KC-30 is OLDER than the KC-767AT since the A330-200-based tankers that currently exist are close to the NG/EADS KC-X offer than the 767–200-based tanker that currently exist are to the Boeing KC-X offer. The NG/EADS KC-30 offer is/was to be powered by GE CF6 engines, are you going to say that it is powered by decades old (decades older than ANY 767) engines? Where did you get the 36% cost growth factor in the engines for Boeing’s proposal? What is the cost growth factor for NG/EADS’s proposal?
i’ve been working on the ‘refuelling all planes’ part of the decision and trying to fill in the (numerous) blanks one clue came from this line: > warns tanker pilots that they
also does anyone find this line surprising: “Northrop Grumman provided to the Air Force with its EN response a FAA Type Certificate for the Airbus A330-200 and A330-300 series aircraft, which identified the maximum operating limit airspeed as 330 KIAS and the design diving speed as 365 KIAS.“ is the A330 really that slow? all other references peg even the ‘economical’ cruise speed at well over 400 knots am i completely missing what’s going on here?
Irtusk, No, that line does not surprise me as it references KIAS (Knots INDICATED Airspeed), not true airspeed (KTAS). At higher flight levels, KIAS is always notably less than KTAS. 310 KIAS at FL300 may be around 450–480 KTAS.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/27/224943/gao-faults-usaf-for-basic-errors-on-tanker-contract.html “For example, the A330 is limited by flight-control software to a maximum speed of 330kt (610km/h), which falls short of the minimum speed that the USAF requires to conduct a so-called “overrun” manoeuvre. Northrop first responded to this shortfall by advising the USAF to change its manoeuvre speed, but lost the argument, the GAO reports. The USAF then accepted Northrop’s claim that the A330 already safely achieves higher speeds in dives. The GAO noted that a commercial aircraft’s maximum operating speed applies to any regime of flight, but the USAF evaluator was unaware of this.”
Huh. Funny how the usual crowd of EADS apologists hasn’t stepped up with even one cogent critique of this GAO decision.
Is anyone else piecing together the redacted portions around page 40–45? It looks like one of the small issues with the Airbus offering was that in the event of a refueling problem with certain extremely fast USAF aircraft, the KC-30/45 would have to retract the boom and simultaneously dive in order to get clear of a midair collision. ‘I’ll take hurtling flamey ball of death for $108 billion, Alex.’
Rix,
You aren’t suppose to know. If you did you could propably figure out for yourself that progams chosen for “past performance” evaluation where chosen for a reason OTHER THAN to actully gauge the likely performance of the two offeres…
RE 1: Sorry but it is the GOA quoting the USAF, Boeing just happend to make it public.
RE 2: By the way Mac, lets us all know when you get to the part where the GOA explains why they chose to side one way on the inconsistent/contradictory threshold/objective vs ‘trade-space’ factor of the RFP…
1. I’ll let anyone who wants to read the GAO doc decide what it says instead of misstating it as you did. Really, there’s not enogh time in the day to
2. No Problem, Mon!
People ignoring what is maybe a minor detail but still, with budgetary problems these days — the 36% cost growth factor in the engines for boeing’s proposal? What else is going to spiral out of boeing’s proposed budget costs with regards to its decades old aircraft?
Boeing’s argument is by no means watertight, and it still appears to me as if EADS should be given the contract.
Ross,
Enough of the BS about the KC-767AT being an old aircraft! In fact it would be MORE correct to say that the KC-30 is OLDER than the KC-767AT since the A330-200-based tankers that currently exist are close to the NG/EADS KC-X offer than the 767–200-based tanker that currently exist are to the Boeing KC-X offer.
The NG/EADS KC-30 offer is/was to be powered by GE CF6 engines, are you going to say that it is powered by decades old (decades older than ANY 767) engines?
Where did you get the 36% cost growth factor in the engines for Boeing’s proposal? What is the cost growth factor for NG/EADS’s proposal?
i’ve been working on the ‘refuelling all planes’ part of the decision and trying to fill in the (numerous) blanks
one clue came from this line:
> warns tanker pilots that they
also does anyone find this line surprising:
“Northrop Grumman provided to the Air Force with its EN response a FAA Type Certificate for the Airbus A330-200 and A330-300 series aircraft, which identified the maximum operating limit airspeed as 330 KIAS and the design diving speed as 365 KIAS.“
is the A330 really that slow?
all other references peg even the ‘economical’ cruise speed at well over 400 knots
am i completely missing what’s going on here?
Irtusk,
No, that line does not surprise me as it references KIAS (Knots INDICATED Airspeed), not true airspeed (KTAS). At higher flight levels, KIAS is always notably less than KTAS. 310 KIAS at FL300 may be around 450–480 KTAS.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/27/224943/gao-faults-usaf-for-basic-errors-on-tanker-contract.html
“For example, the A330 is limited by flight-control software to a maximum speed of 330kt (610km/h), which falls short of the minimum speed that the USAF requires to conduct a so-called “overrun” manoeuvre.
Northrop first responded to this shortfall by advising the USAF to change its manoeuvre speed, but lost the argument, the GAO reports. The USAF then accepted Northrop’s claim that the A330 already safely achieves higher speeds in dives. The GAO noted that a commercial aircraft’s maximum operating speed applies to any regime of flight, but the USAF evaluator was unaware of this.”