Thread: Successor to F-22 by 2025

Originally Posted by highsea

Not when the process began 20 years ago- Boeing knew the 135's were getting old, and was acting proactively. They spent a lot of time with the USAF (informally) making sure they were developing the right platform to replace the 135.
Don't ignore offsets. That's the prime mover in foreign contracts, so of course those countries have political considerations. And of course none of those countries are capable of producing a tanker themselves.

Thats the thing, the process started 20 years ago before there was real platform availability. 10 years ago and you get that.

And the KC-767 is in service, and was in service with Japan before the airbus tanker ever passed a drop of fuel. There are no cost issues with the KC-767, the accounting the AF used ignored all the development costs Boeing already spent, and scored it as if the AF would be paying that cost.

That may be true... but much like the A-330 hadn't passed a drop of fuel yet - there were several significant issues with the 767. The first one, that neither had the boom designed for the USAF passed fuel either. Thats just the first. Whereas now, the Northrop boom has. It is also true that the airplane offered to the USAF wasn't the one offered to Italy or Japan. It's also worth mentioning that Boeing only got certification for the Italian version on September 23 last year. Edit - even Boeing conceded that the airframe in operation with Japan & Italy was very different from the one being offered to the USAF.

There were serious issues with the way the bids were scored. The US has unique requirements, and the KC-767 better met them wrt the primary mission of refueling. The Airbus is a slow refueler, those wing pods are only certified to 330KIAS. That's awfully slow for a fighter refueling, and the tanker is pretty much at it's maximum airspeed.

The Boom Delivers 1200 Gallons per minute
The Pods Deliver 420 Gallons per minute

which isn't a problem according to this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

475 Kts is the tankers max speed. You gave the refuelling speed a 5 KIAS advantage (325) But that's not really the point, at the time of the contract award at Feb 2008, Boeing was having significant problems with it's P&D and EADS was in service on the 310. 325 Isn't slow for P&D It maybe for the USAF which is used to booms - but it aint for the rest of the world's air arms, including the USN.

It failed to meet the KPP on the flyaway speed, and that was ignored by the AF. They called it an "oversight". Getting separation between the tanker and receiver in the event of a problem is kind of important.

It's not as if the Boeing offer didn't fail any of the KPP's either. That is why they did not protest on those grounds, they protested that the Airforce gave northrop extra credit for it's 330 variant whilst telling Boeing it would not, thus influencing Boeing's offer.

The idea that the A330 is technologically superior due only to the year it was designed isn't a good argument. The 767 has undergone continuous upgrades, and is every bit as modern an aircraft as the A330.

No arguments there at all. The argument was a commercial one. the 767 was running out of orders because of the competition. But you do benefit from an airframe which serves commonality from in service production of a commercial variant. The size of the plane in design state does offer superior flexibility though.

There are lots of arguments I could use to make that point, and which bid better met the RFP. But it's kind of tiresome, and I would prefer to wait and see how this round works out.

We could go on for hours. At all times I don't think I would concede b/c it is my belief that as far as the RAAF is concerned it is a long distance, expeditionary airforce that needs the most from our airframes. I don't see how the USAF is any different. We don't have company reps making our defence aquisitions, and even funding of childrens parties by defence firms will get you a smack on the ass.

I will let the defraud the taxpayer comment pass, read my resonse to Jimmy on that point.

She admitted, She signed a statement, She plead guilty, and got a Criminal #. She did so in a court of law. McCain successfully shed accusations that he was in bed with EADS it lost out because if one applied the same standards to Boeing, you'd get quite a few more, it never really stuck. It also reached peak only after Boeing lost the second round (most expected that Boeing would win & when it didn't). If we are relying on 'It always happens' attitude then why have any standards at all and bother prosecuting. Why not let it run rampant. Should take aim at congress too, the amount of defence aquisitions they can push through that are pushed more on politics than merit is disgusting.

Originally Posted by highsea

The idea that the A330 is technologically superior due only to the year it was designed isn't a good argument. The 767 has undergone continuous upgrades, and is every bit as modern an aircraft as the A330.

Just to back highsea up on that point, if and when the Air Force orders the KC-767, the base airframe (before tanker modifications) will be based on the most capable 767 airframe available (currently the B767-200LRF), and will include (but not be limited to) the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear and cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps, uprated engines (63,300 lbs. st) and a "sixth-generation" boom (source: Size matters in US Air Force KC-X contest).

Originally Posted by Stitch

Just to back highsea up on that point, if and when the Air Force orders the KC-767, the base airframe (before tanker modifications) will be based on the most capable 767 airframe available (currently the B767-200LRF), and will include (but not be limited to) the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear and cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps, uprated engines (63,300 lbs. st) and a "sixth-generation" boom (source: Size matters in US Air Force KC-X contest).

All of which has not flown. It's not Available if it hasn't flown. That is not saying that it can't be flown, but any design or production engineer will tell you the devil is in the detail, with the expectation that you'll read in between the lines and see the potential for cost in there. Which is exactly what was experienced with the fluttering problem. Time + Money to fix/abandon/whatever.

If Size matters, get the 330. Scott Hamilton made the same point - it's industry which is tying it down to the 'unique' requirements slogan. AMC might transport 1% of cargo transported on tankers, but but ignores statements and conclusions by the Air Force that a new way of carrying troops and cargo is required for the future, requiring a multi-role tanker-transport. To Transport Troops to the Ghan you need to charter to Manas?, then C-17 them in from there. It's an IFTPE dummy spit argument because it would not be making a KC-767. There aint nothing unique about World Wide Deployment from an ever decreasing amount of bases. Worried about tarmac space, build more of it, your going to need it anyway. Absolutely guarantee that when the '10 replacement comes up those 'unique requirements' will be out of the window for the same reason they have been the most overloaded tanker in every recent major conflict the USAF has been in.

If the USAF wants the 767, just buy it. If you want a competition, open it for industry innovation, don't constrain it. But the 767 isn't overly better if at all than the A330. The RAF/RAAF/UAE arn't that stupid. To insinuate it is doesn't take into account the steps made in the procurement organisations to iron out dodgy decision making - even if there is a way to go.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Thats the thing, the process started 20 years ago before there was real platform availability. 10 years ago and you get that.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Boeing acted proactively- they went to work on the project a decade before the RFP was ever released. Of course there were 767's coming off the line back then. There were also 777's in production. The USAF had the choice to steer Boeing that direction, but didn't want a KC-10 replacement. The 767 better fit the role as the AF saw it.

Originally Posted by Chunder

That may be true... but much like the A-330 hadn't passed a drop of fuel yet - there were several significant issues with the 767. The first one, that neither had the boom designed for the USAF passed fuel either. Thats just the first. Whereas now, the Northrop boom has. It is also true that the airplane offered to the USAF wasn't the one offered to Italy or Japan. It's also worth mentioning that Boeing only got certification for the Italian version on September 23 last year. Edit - even Boeing conceded that the airframe in operation with Japan & Italy was very different from the one being offered to the USAF.

None of that matters one whit. The KC-767 got IOC in March last year. It's an in-service tanker.

And Boeing has a hell of a lot more experience with refueling booms than Northrup.

The holdup wrt Italy was mainly due to labor issues in Italy. Boeing didn't like having to pull those frames back to Witchita, they did it because they had to. They sat on the pad in Italy for two years with nothing getting done.

Originally Posted by Chunder

The Boom Delivers 1200 Gallons per minute
The Pods Deliver 420 Gallons per minute

which isn't a problem according to this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

475 Kts is the tankers max speed. You gave the refuelling speed a 5 KIAS advantage (325) But that's not really the point, at the time of the contract award at Feb 2008, Boeing was having significant problems with it's P&D and EADS was in service on the 310. 325 Isn't slow for P&D It maybe for the USAF which is used to booms - but it aint for the rest of the world's air arms, including the USN.

It's not a question of the speed the pods deliver fuel, it's a question of the airspeed the refueling operation is taking place. Fighters like 350-360 KIAS for stability, and you need a little wiggle room for the aircraft to separate. If there's a problem, the tanker needs to be able to speed up and climb away while the receivers cut power and drop back.

This is less of an issue for F-18 or F-35, but it counts when you are dealing with F-16 of F-15.

325 KIAS is the pod manufacturer's figure. 330 KIAS is Airbus's figure. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Don't confuse IAS with TAS. 300 KIAS at 35,000 works out to 475 KTAS. But KIAS is what counts, that's the air the wing feels.

That 475 number is TAS at 36,000 ft- that's why it's an altitude specific specification. (it actually works out to 473 KTAS if you do the conversion)

Originally Posted by Chunder

It's not as if the Boeing offer didn't fail any of the KPP's either. That is why they did not protest on those grounds, they protested that the Airforce gave northrop extra credit for it's 330 variant whilst telling Boeing it would not, thus influencing Boeing's offer.

That's not true. Boeing exceeded all the KPP's. Boeing did protest on those grounds, because the Airbus failed the KPP on flyaway speed and wasn't penalized for it. The GAO upheld Boeing's protest on that point, but didn't publish the specifics due to proprietary issues.

I'm not bound by those restrictions.

Originally Posted by Chunder

No arguments there at all. The argument was a commercial one. the 767 was running out of orders because of the competition. But you do benefit from an airframe which serves commonality from in service production of a commercial variant. The size of the plane in design state does offer superior flexibility though.

There are tradeoffs. Bigger isn't always better. The KC-X was defined as a KC-135 replacement, not a KC-10 replacement.

The added infrastructure requirement for the A330 is significant, and the AF didn't take that into consideration in the scoring.

And the A330 is scheduled to stop production in 2015, so the idea that it is preferable because it is an "in production" aircraft is moot.

Originally Posted by Chunder

We could go on for hours. At all times I don't think I would concede b/c it is my belief that as far as the RAAF is concerned it is a long distance, expeditionary airforce that needs the most from our airframes. I don't see how the USAF is any different. We don't have company reps making our defence aquisitions, and even funding of childrens parties by defence firms will get you a smack on the ass.

I don't give a rats ass what the RAAF or anyone else picks, and I can't figure out for the life of me what gets you so excited about this subject. But the RAAF and the USAF have very different requirements, and just because it works better for you or the UAE doesn't mean it fits the USAF better. We have a large existing infrastructure built around supporting and maintaining Boeing planes already. I have talked to a lot of airline A&P's that work on both, and every time they tell me the same thing- they hate working on airbus planes.

And there are a lot of people here that just plain don't like the idea of relying on France for our tankers. We can build them ourselves, we can give the USAF whatever plane they need.

Issue the RFP and follow the scoring rules as specified. If Boeing loses, fine. I don't think they will if the process is done openly and fairly.

Originally Posted by Chunder

She admitted, She signed a statement, She plead guilty, and got a Criminal #. She did so in a court of law. McCain successfully shed accusations that he was in bed with EADS it lost out because if one applied the same standards to Boeing, you'd get quite a few more, it never really stuck. It also reached peak only after Boeing lost the second round (most expected that Boeing would win & when it didn't). If we are relying on 'It always happens' attitude then why have any standards at all and bother prosecuting. Why not let it run rampant. Should take aim at congress too, the amount of defence aquisitions they can push through that are pushed more on politics than merit is disgusting.

I don't argue with any of that. I would like to see the revolving door closed. But every single defense company in the US has former acquisition people working for them.

As far as McCain, his national finance chairman was a lobbyist for EADS. McCain pushed the USAF to ignore the illagal subsidies Airbus received, for which they have already lost the suit. He also took a lot of campaign money from EADS. He was instrumental in the decision against Boeing.

Originally Posted by highsea

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Boeing acted proactively- they went to work on the project a decade before the RFP was ever released. Of course there were 767's coming off the line back then. There were also 777's in production. The USAF had the choice to steer Boeing that direction, but didn't want a KC-10 replacement. The 767 better fit the role as the AF saw it.

Im trying to say that commercial options based out of a manufacturers own design & development money without a clear requirement from the USAF (although knew there would be a requirement) always carries risk. The Difference between 1990 and 2000 is that the A-330 came on scene. The 777 production line was flat out getting started anyway.

None of that matters one whit. The KC-767 got IOC in March last year. It's an in-service tanker.

No it is not. The KC-767 offered to Japan & Italy is a vastly different tanker than that offered to the USAF. BOTH tankers went through SIGNIFICANT delays and IN SERVICE PROBLEMS, because of the introduction of a new variant. It's not just Italy's problems, Japan had them too. The variant that was offered to the USAF was on paper.

And Boeing has a hell of a lot more experience with refueling booms than Northrup.

That might be true but Boeings last delivered Tanker to the USAF was 44 years ago. This is a new generation boom. EADS variant has been passing fuel for quite awhile now & is due to go into service later this year. The same boom is offered for the KC-X requirement. Thats what testing is for, your in manufacturing as well, & know as well as I do that just because X product is on the market is no reason to detract from a new product subject to prooving itself. If we used the experience argument in favoring a companies credibility because of a bonafide capability to deliver a platform as opposed to the in house technical ability to design and develop a boom & let the test process iron out the difference then we'd unfairly bias the competition. The reality is Boeing has not much more technical capability of design and fligh testing a boom, than EADS is, just as the development platform itself, because the design staff involved went away.

Now if one is going to overlook the in service design lacking by EADS, one should apply the same logic to the Boeing variant, period.

The holdup wrt Italy was mainly due to labor issues in Italy. Boeing didn't like having to pull those frames back to Witchita, they did it because they had to. They sat on the pad in Italy for two years with nothing getting done.
It's not a question of the speed the pods deliver fuel, it's a question of the airspeed the refueling operation is taking place. Fighters like 350-360 KIAS for stability, and you need a little wiggle room for the aircraft to separate. If there's a problem, the tanker needs to be able to speed up and climb away while the receivers cut power and drop back.

Probe & Drogue operations don't operate at high speeds however. The reason the USAF is on boom & is used to boom operations is because the Tanker fleet is a SAC fleet. the SAC fleet was bomber orientated. Now I can't say what speeds fighters like refuelling at, except that the Refuelling operations of which are undertaken by the rest of the worlds air arms do fly at those lower speeds. At last check Boeing was having significant problems with fluttering and counter weights on the outboard pylons with the centerline attachment issues being fixed. That was 2 years ago, IDK whats happened since then.

This is less of an issue for F-18 or F-35, but it counts when you are dealing with F-16 of F-15.

If it's such a concern build a varient that can refuel at higher speeds. EADS offering was based on the In service capability and characteristics of one of it's pods. Or buy the Pod from a Third Pary & test it - that option is available.

That's not true. Boeing exceeded all the KPP's. Boeing did protest on those grounds, because the Airbus failed the KPP on flyaway speed and wasn't penalized for it. The GAO upheld Boeing's protest on that point, but didn't publish the specifics due to proprietary issues.

Not true? It's point 4 of the GAO's redacted version of upholding the protest.
From GAO report upholding Boeings protest:

4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

If you don't recall, this was because the Airforce changed the way some of the scoring was done mid way through the assessment. There was speculation at the time that this would probably be used as a trigger for protest in any event... low and behold it was.

Unfortunately the web based link about the Airforces submission to Boeings protest re GAO is no longer available. It is not as if the USAF did not justify it's changes.

There are tradeoffs. Bigger isn't always better. The KC-X was defined as a KC-135 replacement, not a KC-10 replacement.

Im not saying bigger is always better. Im saying it offers flexibility. If people want to use the dictionary to define replacement and use the 1% cost difference, to solicit a competition in name only, then we seem to be missing the point of a competition. You could replace the current airframe with a new 135 and get a winner. Which is silly. The 135 didn't come into the fleet for any other reason than it was the best platform available for the time for SAC to keep up with it's bombers and give the maximum offload possible. Now Fuel offload isn't all what it's about granted, but to me there is something inherently wrong with a competition that places too much emphasis on replacement of a 60 year old design.

And the A330 is scheduled to stop production in 2015, so the idea that it is preferable because it is an "in production" aircraft is moot.

Granted - the 787 and 350 are supposed to be the lunch cutters of both A/C except freight versions.

I don't give a rats ass what the RAAF or anyone else picks, and I can't figure out for the life of me what gets you so excited about this subject. But the RAAF and the USAF have very different requirements

Their requirements are not any different. They both require long expeditionary missions, they both refuel the same types of planes throughout the operational spectrum, in the same conflicts, from more or less the same bases, and they both require the lifting of cargo. I get excited because when it comes down between the types of Tanking missions the USAF vs the RAAF does and it's practical interpretation into what aircraft better suits the mission the difference is Phuck all. Absolutely SFA. The main threat to the Boeing Bullshit Circle is believing it's own crap. If the only way to single out a product is to discredit the missions for which other Air arms select them for, the only way you can do this is if you say they have VERY different requirements. Which is Crap.

Of course the USAF have very different requirements, thats why they were Sweet Phuck all help to the USN in Afghanistan and RAF tankers were a saving grace of many missions, because the USAF has it's head so far up it's ass in it's unique requirements land, that the Mission of projecting force of the worlds most powerful military, is directly inhibited & jeopardised by its own service branches selfish requirements attitude, so much so, that at times it needs the services of (inferior slow Probue & Drogue of nations that you don't give a rats ass) about to accomplish it's mission. Here's the Spray, everyone that had an air refuelling fleet had better redundancy & offload of their Tactical fighter fleet for decades than what the USAF had & still has, because of the USAF's "Unique requirements". We should perhaps start scrutinising on how exactly the unique requirements are particularly unique, and how they deserve to be weighted so greatly...

and just because it works better for you or the UAE doesn't mean it fits the USAF better.

Doesn't mean it does not fit the USAF worse for that matter either.

We have a large existing infrastructure built around supporting and maintaining Boeing planes already. I have talked to a lot of airline A&P's that work on both, and every time they tell me the same thing- they hate working on airbus planes.

I have a CASA number as a former LAME too I can establish these if you want. There is eff all difference between working on/ between the two, I had no problems around them, and there were a number in the QANTAS fleet at the time I was doing that. Then again old dogs are used to Boeing and not on Airbuses. Though some are perped in favor of one or another (all with 'riveting' good reason. I had some moron try and tell me that Airbuses were infinitely harder to maintain in a convo one day, because of their use of composites. I told him that was funny, because I have my composites fp from CASA, was an AME and that I had never had problems at all. You know, some airframes have their quirks and they get a rep. In common practice that gets lined up with all the other problems. You won't get me volunteering to do pressure checks on Lycoming Horizontally Opposed 6's because you can bet your bottom that it's going to involve broken piston squirt nozzles in the casting... for instance Anyway, point of the story is, I wouldn't expect anything else from West Coast USA. I think it's just as much bullshit as backing a Holden Commodore as opposed to a Ford Falcon. My SOE has more Boeing hours than Airbus ones. Thats because the Depot did 737's Not Airbuses.

And there are a lot of people here that just plain don't like the idea of relying on France for our tankers. We can build them ourselves, we can give the USAF whatever plane they need.

Thats presuming that the Boeing is made soley in the USA, and it is not. So you don't build them yourselves. By the time you add in the engines and the U.S sourcing, over 50% of the Airbus offering is from the USA anyway.

Issue the RFP and follow the scoring rules as specified. If Boeing loses, fine. I don't think they will if the process is done openly and fairly.
I don't argue with any of that. I would like to see the revolving door closed. But every single defense company in the US has former acquisition people working for them.

I don't give a shit if Boeing wins a fair competition, end of story. If it did then full credit to it. But this crap of choosing what part of the 767 is better than the A-330 because of (insert minor factoid here) is just that Typical USA lost patriot politics that when actually examined as to where the monies finally end up there is little damned differences and the people on the hill making the most noise get a lot of Boeing $$$. As far as the competition is concerned, it's focus should be on preventing U.S service personell from dying, and providing flexibility to the USAF mission. There is no need to be treating tanking as a 'silver bullet' tanker only mission any more, Charter costs the pentagon too much money, Afghanistan demonstrates that. Last time the scoring was based on a 'scenario' type mission requirement IIRC (could be wrong). Now should the end result be that Boeing has the product of choice - then good for it. But I am very suspect that in the RFP there is ample opportunity to constrain a competition to bias it, on the smallest technicality lawyerspeak.

As far as McCain, his national finance chairman was a lobbyist for EADS. McCain pushed the USAF to ignore the illagal subsidies Airbus received, for which they have already lost the suit. He also took a lot of campaign money from EADS. He was instrumental in the decision against Boeing.

And Congressmen/women on Capital hill don't get campaign money and backing from Boeing & Boeing employees? So what, Mc Cain saved the Airforce from a total rip off tanker lease deal. Saving it Billions. People in Boeing, and People in the USAF, were trying to defraud their very own nation and taxpayers & the people backing it & supporting it. In doing so, they deserve to be treated with the contempt and feeling of betrayal of the nation they undertook to serve / the nation their product was supposed to help. No amount of goodwill development can overlook this. Boeing deserves to be scrutinised as harshly as possible, and deserves to be made to jump through as many hoops as possible to make it offer the best possible deal, as a repercussion.

If that makes me come out as a Boeing basher then damned good. They were/are as fraudulent (as is for that matter the IFTPE) as anyone else whoose been given that label here on WAB. The difference is, they have been convicted of it. If we're going to Blame Mc Cain for it, it's moot. If he did it because of money he got from EADS, oh well, they still deserve what they got.

Question remains, will Boeing have to jump through hoops for it's offering, or not. We will see in the next 90 days I suppose. Will there be another protest? Probably. Another CSAR Saga perhaps?