USAF Tanker Decision: KC-30 wins - Page 2

**TopHatter** · 03-02-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

"I am deeply troubled by the Air Force's decision to award the KC-X tanker to a French company that has never built a tanker in its history," he said. "We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."

The Congressional delegation from Seattle said they were "outraged" by the choice. "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," said a joint statement from Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and with six other lawmakers from the area. "We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force's justification."

These people make me sick (hardly a shock, they're politicians, which puts them in the same bottom-feeder POS category as the media).

They're acting like Kansas and Washington are the only 2 states in the Union and that ZERO Americans will work on this project.

Then there's that statement from the two Washington senators about how they're going to grill the USAF on it's choice. Exactly WTF to these two idiots know about air-to-air refueling, pray tell? Unless there's a small army of Boeing lobbyists sitting behind them, whispering in their ears, they'll be utterly clueless.

F--king politicians.

JA Boomer · 03-02-2008, 15:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunder

The boom iwll be an EADS FBW boom... as EADS has extensive experience in maintaining booms in teh French Airforce

I believe the tankers in the French Air Force are C-135FR's produced by Boeing. Is EADS contracted out to maintain the aircraft?

glyn · 03-02-2008, 16:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

I believe the tankers in the French Air Force are C-135FR's produced by Boeing. Is EADS contracted out to maintain the aircraft?

And I'm sure most of the readers of this thread will know how the FR gear on the French tankers is referred to?

S65 · 03-02-2008, 17:57 PM

I'm pretty sure that the KC-45 will make quite a few jobs here in the US, they will be manufacturing in Alabama.

Northrop Grumman KC-45 Tanker: A Commitment to U.S. Industrial Activity

Off of wiki, the estimated cost of the KC-767 was ~150 million and the KC-45 ~200 million.

Chunder · 03-04-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

I believe the tankers in the French Air Force are C-135FR's produced by Boeing. Is EADS contracted out to maintain the aircraft?

Thats Correct. Well, the Flying Boom at least.

The Politicians in the US are going to have to learn one hard lesson: That the rest of the west (and many eastern countries) have long since decided that a competitive run off with the best option taking the contract is the way to go.

Awarding Boeing the contract to build an out of date airframe that it is already phasing out means that Boeing will not have learnt a thing about true competition. Irrespective of Aircraft loaded weight, the Cold hard facts are that aircraft are only getting heavier and why the military should be considered exempt from this rule is beyong many.

The net result for the Americans will mean that for the next contract Boeing will NOT take as much for granted, and invest much more time nad money into a better product than the KC767.

That benefits American Industry, Jobs & employment far more industriously than a design you were almost forced to carry on with because you were looking for some more of the same aircraft that would otherwise require the line to be shut, that you were hoping to get through on a corrupt - non competition basis.

I beleive the men and women in the USAF are better placed to know what they need than Boeing. Hopefully Boeing will provide better options next time around.

highsea · 03-04-2008, 13:00 PM

The KC-767 met every requirement in the RFP. If the AF wanted a larger plane, they should have asked for one, and Boeing would have came back with a 777 version. The average refueling mission offloads 70,000 lbs of jet fuel. These AC don't take off full and come back empty, why pack that extra fuel around?

The 767 may be an older design, but it is 24% more fuel efficient than the Airbus. Commercial carriers know something that the AF doesn't seem to have learned- that a more efficient plane is cheaper to own over the life cycle. Boeing could have offered a mix of '67's and '77's as well, keeping a common flight deck, and still maintaining a capability for a larger loadout if needed (which is unlikely).

The 767 can use existing infrastructure of the -135- runways, hangars, etc. New ones will have to be built for the larger plane, and runways upgraded. It is not known how the larger plane will affect refueling operations- more wake turbulence, etc.

This plane will not be built in Alabama- just final assembly. The airframe will be built in France, the wings in the UK, the nose in Germany, the tail in Spain, etc....And the USAF will be dependent on the goodwill of all these European countries for spares for the next 50-80 years.

Boeing has been building tankers for 5 decades and know what they are doing. The airbus is a paper airplane.

44,000 US aerospace jobs will be exported to Europe and $40 billion dollars taken out of the US economy.

Way to go Air Force.....

glyn · 03-04-2008, 14:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The KC-767 met every requirement in the RFP.

Perhaps, but the KC-45 exceeded them.

If the AF wanted a larger plane, they should have asked for one, and Boeing would have came back with a 777 version.

Boeing made tanker verions of the 747 and supplied them to Iran. Size alone is not the full story as you well know, Casey. The selection process was protracted and every possible feature was put into the equation to be weighed. Of course, were it not for the impropriety and time wasting by Boeing the issue would not be nearly so contentious as it has become.

The average refueling mission offloads 70,000 lbs of jet fuel. These AC don't take off full and come back empty, why pack that extra fuel around?

With fewer tankers available the offloads will necessarily be greater than that in future.

The 767 may be an older design, but it is 24% more fuel efficient than the Airbus.

Due to the difference in size and capability between the two you are comparing apples with oranges.

Commercial carriers know something that the AF doesn't seem to have learned- that a more efficient plane is cheaper to own over the life cycle. Boeing could have offered a mix of '67's and '77's as well, keeping a common flight deck, and still maintaining a capability for a larger loadout if needed (which is unlikely).

The 757 line was coming to its end because Boeing couldn't sell the model. A good plane in its day but commercial operators (who use their own money to buy aircraft) would no longer consider it to be a viable type. Having a common flight deck is an interesting idea (like the 757 and 767 had) but integrating it into the 777 would undoubtedly be costly.

The 767 can use existing infrastructure of the -135- runways, hangars, etc. New ones will have to be built for the larger plane, and runways upgraded.

I'm not sure you're right there.

It is not known how the larger plane will affect refueling operations- more wake turbulence, etc.

It's been trialled already. No problems.

This plane will not be built in Alabama- just final assembly. The airframe will be built in France, the wings in the UK, the nose in Germany, the tail in Spain, etc....And the USAF will be dependent on the goodwill of all these European countries for spares for the next 50-80 years.

Over half the ticket price will be for items of US manufacture.

Boeing has been building tankers for 5 decades and know what they are doing.

When it's considered that the KC-135 was a minimum change from the commercial 707 the Stratotanker has done extremely well for over half a century. Obviously components have been changed, it has been re-skinned, re-engined and upgraded in so many ways, but the cost of operating it has become prohibitive.

The airbus is a paper airplane.

Not so, sir. Examples are flying now.

44,000 US aerospace jobs will be exported to Europe and $40 billion dollars taken out of the US economy.

Way to go Air Force.....

Every time the rest of the world buys American you profit and they lose. The US rarely buys foreign equipment - but what a hulabalou is raised when it does!

omon · 03-04-2008, 14:21 PM

unfortunatly, us buys more than sells, about 80% of consumer products here in the states are imported, mostly from china. job ousoursing is worrying, if you call customer service chances you talking to someone in india.

highsea · 03-04-2008, 15:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Perhaps, but the KC-45 exceeded them.

The AF overemphasized the cargo role. It was not a significant part of the RFP, which meant Boeing didn't come to the table with a like platform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Boeing made tanker verions of the 747 and supplied them to Iran. Size alone is not the full story as you well know, Casey. The selection process was protracted and every possible feature was put into the equation to be weighed. Of course, were it not for the impropriety and time wasting by Boeing the issue would not be nearly so contentious as it has become.

I smell a rat. I agree that Boeing's impropriety was a factor however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

With fewer tankers available the offloads will necessarily be greater than that in future.

So? The Boeing bid met the RFP. If the AF wanted more capacity, they should have specified it in the RFP. Boeing could easily have come with a 777 platform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Due to the difference in size and capability between the two you are comparing apples with oranges.

No, I am comparing the KC-767 and KC-30. The KC-767 will burn 24% less fuel per mile than the KC-30.

The Air Force uses about 1/2 the total fuel of the entire US military. They have been making a big fuss about their plans for a "greener" air force, more efficient, etc. Boeing took all that talk seriously, and came in with a more efficient proposal, and lost because of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

The 757 line was coming to its end because Boeing couldn't sell the model. A good plane in its day but commercial operators (who use their own money to buy aircraft) would no longer consider it to be a viable type. Having a common flight deck is an interesting idea (like the 757 and 767 had) but integrating it into the 777 would undoubtedly be costly.

The 767-400 ER and 777 already have a common flight deck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

I'm not sure you're right there.

There are a lot of small airbases around the world that can support the KC-767 and cannot support the KC-30.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

It's been trialled already. No problems.

On an A-310 airframe. The first KC-30 is not fitted out for refueling as yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Over half the ticket price will be for items of US manufacture.

I'll believe this when I see it. Since we're not building the airframe, nose, wings, or tail, I wonder which "half" we will be building....

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

When it's considered that the KC-135 was a minimum change from the commercial 707 the Stratotanker has done extremely well for over half a century. Obviously components have been changed, it has been re-skinned, re-engined and upgraded in so many ways, but the cost of operating it has become prohibitive.

I don't recall advocating the continuation of the KC-135, but now that you mention it- deliveries of the KC-30 will take significantly longer than the KC-767, so we'll have to keep flying the KC-135's for that much longer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Not so, sir. Examples are flying now.

Not yet outfitted out for refueling...AFAIK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Every time the rest of the world buys American you profit and they lose. The US rarely buys foreign equipment - but what a hulabalou is raised when it does!

If they lose, then why do they buy???

And why should we buy foreign when we have a proven track record with the type and can build the plane ourselves?? How many times have our European "allies" denied us overflight rights in the past when they disagreed with our policies? I don't like the thought that we could be denied spares in the future because Spain disagrees with an American president over something.

Stan · 03-04-2008, 18:39 PM

Hey we base our nuclear response on if you let us use the missiles we bought. not a great responce i grant you but the same one alot of people will be thinking when they buy equipment from the US.

Guess you guys are just going to have to trust us in europe.

I hope this order does go through, if it doesnt I hope to see alot more people questioning americas place in free trade, they like it when they can sell but when any one beats an american company to a contract, hey global trade has gone nutz.

You guys are just one long contradiction aint ya,

Stan · 03-04-2008, 18:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omon

unfortunatly, us buys more than sells, about 80% of consumer products here in the states are imported, mostly from china. job ousoursing is worrying, if you call customer service chances you talking to someone in india.

welcome to the world the UK lives in, we manage.

there is a back lash against indian call centres in the UK which is promoting companies to switch back to the UK because people are willing to pay more to deal with a UK based call centre. Big ploy in the first place I bet but what can you do.

highsea · 03-04-2008, 19:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

Hey we base our nuclear response on if you let us use the missiles we bought. not a great responce i grant you but the same one alot of people will be thinking when they buy equipment from the US.

So build your own missiles if you don't like the terms. No one's holding a gun to your head, you're a member of the P5...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

Guess you guys are just going to have to trust us in europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

I hope this order does go through, if it doesnt I hope to see alot more people questioning americas place in free trade, they like it when they can sell but when any one beats an american company to a contract, hey global trade has gone nutz.

Using Airbus and free trade in the same sentence is an oxymoron...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

You guys are just one long contradiction aint ya,

Lol. I don't believe I've contradicted myself on anything here. I think the plane should be an American plane, that's all.

kams · 03-04-2008, 21:07 PM

Hey Highsea, how are you?

Here is an analysis on why NG-EADS combo won. What do you think of this?

Quote:

ARLINGTON, Va., March 4 (UPI) -- Last week Northrop Grumman and its European partner EADS confounded expectations by beating incumbent Boeing for the contract to build the U.S. Air Force's next-generation aerial refueling tanker.

The initial contract will be for 179 modified wide-body jets, but eventually the entire fleet of 600 Cold War tankers will need to be replaced, making this one of the biggest marketing coups in defense-industry history. However, that is just the beginning of what Northrop Grumman has achieved, because Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop Grumman in a single measure of merit. Here's how they were evaluated:

First -- Mission capability: Arguably the most important factor, this metric compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration & software, product support, program management and technology maturity. The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop Grumman offering was deemed to offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nautical miles range and substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nautical miles range. The superior airlift capacity of Northrop Grumman's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop Grumman the edge for this factor.

Second -- Proposal risk: This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop Grumman proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.

Third -- Past performance: The Northrop Grumman team received higher ratings in past performance due to satisfactory execution of half a dozen programs deemed relevant to the tanker competition. U.S. Air Force reviewers had less confidence in Boeing's past performance due to poor execution in three relevant programs. In addition, Northrop Grumman's subcontractors were rated more highly on past performance than Boeing's.

Fourth -- Cost/price: This was the factor in which many observers expected the Northrop-EADS team to shine, because EADS subsidiary Airbus usually underbids Boeing in commercial competitions. But Boeing compounded its difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker. The resulting low confidence in Boeing cost projections undercut its claims of lower life-cycle costs. Northrop Grumman was rated higher.

Fifth -- Integrated assessment: The "integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment" was designed to compare how the competing planes would fare in an operational setting using a realistic wartime scenario. The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage.

So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop Grumman-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.

link

highsea · 03-04-2008, 21:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kams

Hey Highsea, how are you?

Hi Kams. Doing good, just very busy these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kams

Here is an analysis on why NG-EADS combo won. What do you think of this?

Lip service.

As far as capacity/capability, the A330 is a much larger plane. Boeing could have come in with a 777 version if that's what the AF had asked for.

I disagree with both the risk and timeframe assumptions. IMO, Boeing is lower risk due to much more experience building tankers (the N-G/EADS team has none), and the timeframe cited by the author is not based on Boeing's numbers, they are the AF's numbers. Boeing offered a much more agressive delivery schedule, which the AF rejected.

Past performance- again I diasagree- Boeing has an excellent performance record, though I admit it has had some difficulty with sub contractors on a couple high profile projects.

Boeing's offer was more cost-effective both initially and long term.

We'll have to see how it pans out. The decision will be unpopular with the Congress.

JA Boomer · 03-05-2008, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

As far as capacity/capability, the A330 is a much larger plane. Boeing could have come in with a 777 version if that's what the AF had asked for.

I not trying to pick a fight here heasighs, but have you read the RFP for the KC-45? (I have not)

All I am saying is that maybe it was Boeing who dropped the ball here...and that they opted for the easier design (B767 over B777) in their proposal?

They also had ulterior motives for going with the B767 (which is clinging on to production life by a thread) and not the B777 (which is continuing to enjoy good commercial sales)

Also, when you say the B767 is 12% more efficient than the A330. That's not fair and you know it. Compare the efficiency of a piece of freight or a lb. of fuel in each aircraft, that's fair. The A330 can carry more freight, farther...and this is offset by its larger engines which use more gas. Everything is relative.

All this is coming from a bystander who doesn't really care one way or the other. I would have bet the farm that the KC-767 would have won, knew that the KC-30 was the more advanced and capable airplane. I'm happy for the USAF if they choose the KC-30 based on their requirements, putting the capability of the military and the lives of its airmen above the need for US production.

I do wonder though, if the USAF had made a critical mistake by selecting a larger airframe. This will most likely mean that there will be 3 sizes of tankers in the future (KC-135/KC-45/KC-10). I know this competition was to replace the KC-135E models, and the KC-135R's will be replaced in the future via a new selection process. But for logistical sake, it would have been simpler to replace the KC-135/KC-10 combo with a tactical tanker and a strategic one (such as the KC-767 or KC-310 AND a KC-777. Maybe having 3 tanker sizes gives you added capability that outweighs the logistics.

03-04-2008, 13:00 PM	#21 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	The KC-767 met every requirement in the RFP. If the AF wanted a larger plane, they should have asked for one, and Boeing would have came back with a 777 version. The average refueling mission offloads 70,000 lbs of jet fuel. These AC don't take off full and come back empty, why pack that extra fuel around? The 767 may be an older design, but it is 24% more fuel efficient than the Airbus. Commercial carriers know something that the AF doesn't seem to have learned- that a more efficient plane is cheaper to own over the life cycle. Boeing could have offered a mix of '67's and '77's as well, keeping a common flight deck, and still maintaining a capability for a larger loadout if needed (which is unlikely). The 767 can use existing infrastructure of the -135- runways, hangars, etc. New ones will have to be built for the larger plane, and runways upgraded. It is not known how the larger plane will affect refueling operations- more wake turbulence, etc. This plane will not be built in Alabama- just final assembly. The airframe will be built in France, the wings in the UK, the nose in Germany, the tail in Spain, etc....And the USAF will be dependent on the goodwill of all these European countries for spares for the next 50-80 years. Boeing has been building tankers for 5 decades and know what they are doing. The airbus is a paper airplane. 44,000 US aerospace jobs will be exported to Europe and $40 billion dollars taken out of the US economy. Way to go Air Force..... __________________ My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

03-04-2008, 14:21 PM	#23 (permalink)
omon Field mechanik *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-01-06 Location: bk Posts: 1,925 Country:	unfortunatly, us buys more than sells, about 80% of consumer products here in the states are imported, mostly from china. job ousoursing is worrying, if you call customer service chances you talking to someone in india. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

03-04-2008, 18:39 PM	#25 (permalink)
Stan Contributor Join Date: 07-11-06 Posts: 375 Country:	Hey we base our nuclear response on if you let us use the missiles we bought. not a great responce i grant you but the same one alot of people will be thinking when they buy equipment from the US. Guess you guys are just going to have to trust us in europe. I hope this order does go through, if it doesnt I hope to see alot more people questioning americas place in free trade, they like it when they can sell but when any one beats an american company to a contract, hey global trade has gone nutz. You guys are just one long contradiction aint ya, __________________ Loving good discussion since 1983 Last edited by Stan : 03-04-2008 at 18:42 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Future of USAF Tactical Fighter Assets	JA Boomer	Military Aviation	57	02-24-2008 14:27 PM
USAF Plans	rickusn	Military Aviation	21	08-11-2007 22:19 PM
China vs India	dabrownguy	Land Forces	383	11-02-2006 04:33 AM
tanker driver killed, 8 lakhs chemicals stolen	platinum786	Political Discussions	12	04-25-2006 17:31 PM
Midlink 78 - Excercise B/w Usaf And Paf - Nov./Dec. '78 from PAF Base Masroor	visioninthedark	South Asian Defense Topics	4	08-10-2004 21:34 PM

03-02-2008, 17:57 PM	#19 (permalink)
S65 Regular Join Date: 12-22-07 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 35 Country:	I'm pretty sure that the KC-45 will make quite a few jobs here in the US, they will be manufacturing in Alabama. Northrop Grumman KC-45 Tanker: A Commitment to U.S. Industrial Activity Off of wiki, the estimated cost of the KC-767 was ~150 million and the KC-45 ~200 million.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)