backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 154 comment(s) - last by sv17ein.. on Mar 28 at 12:45 PM

Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45A tanker  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)
Boeing calls out to the General Accounting Office for help

It seems almost inevitable that things would come to this, but Boeing will officially file a protest today citing its concerns over the U.S. Air Force's decision to go with Northrop Grumman/EADS's KC-45A tanker design. Even though the KC-45A, built on a highly modified Airbus A330 airframe, appeared to win the contract based on its superior performance on nearly every front, Boeing wants the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to further investigate the decision.

The call for the GAO to review the Air Force's decision came after Boeing was debriefed on the reasons why Northrop Grumman/EADA won the $35 billion contract two weeks ago.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Boeing Chief Jim McNerney yesterday in a press release. "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously."

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal," McNerney continued. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing was greatly displeased by the U.S. Air Force's decision and goes on to state on many occasions its "75 years of unmatched experience building tankers" and how it "offered the Air Force the best value and lowest risk tanker for its mission".

Boeing was so enraged, in fact, that it issued a total of five press releases relating to the tanker contract after the final decision was handed down.

For its part, the Air Force is sticking by its decision to go with the KC-45A design. The KC-45A simply offered "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," according to Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte.

It appears that Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADA may be in for a lengthy deliberation process as the GAO combs over the tanker program details and the decision to select the KC-45A. It remains to be seen if the GAO will buy Boeing's argument that the Air Force required the "bare minimum" and nothing more which the U.S. aircraft giant did indeed provide compared to the KC-45A.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"

Most capable? The A330 is bigger, carries more fuel, can do it for longer, can carry more passengers and cargo, and can do it on the same footprint as the KC-135 which it replaces (which was the USAF spec)

Lowest risk? The A330MRTT tanker is flying RIGHT now, the KC-45 is a derivative of this. Whereas the Boeing frankentanker is a mixing of various 767 (-200, -300,-400 and freighter)parts is still just drawings. That is an outright lie on Boeing's part.

Lowest life cycle? Are Boeing on drugs? The 767 line is due to close within the next few years. That means when the KC-Y contract offer comes up, the USAF will be forced to operate a mixed fleet which ALWAYS equates to higher than ideal costs. Meanwhile, the A330 line will be going strong, and parts support will continue to be much stronger as the fleet is comparatively younger.

I'm sorry, but from the perspective of someone in the industry, Boeing's argument is very short on facts and playing on (ill-informed) people's emotions.




RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By erwos on 3/11/2008 12:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
You seem to have no idea why Boeing is appealing. Let me help you out, and short-circuit any more of the "my plane is better than your plane!" idiocy.

Boeing isn't debating any of those points you listed. What they _are_ saying is that the military substantially changed the requirements for the contracts without giving the bidders enough notice. The changes to the requirements for cost and size were not properly relayed to Boeing, and thus EADS was able to use the information to put together a bid that Boeing could not have matched. If Boeing had been given proper access to that information, they may have put in a much more competitive bid. This is supposed to be a competitive process, and what the military did (allegedly) harmed that competition in a substantial way.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 4
You have absolutely no idea of the facts do you?

You know Boeing effectively wrote the original USAF spec, and tailored it to the 767?

Of course you don't. You don't have a notion what has been going on here. Boeing had 5 months to write the original ORD in 2002, then gave EADS 12 days with it.

John McCain (yes, the same one running for Pres) uncovered the dirty dealings within all this - hence why several people enjoyed time in federal prisons.

The airforce asked for proposals for the revised KC-Y comp in Jan of 2007.

As for the idea that Boeing would have bid the 777 - absolute lunacy and further evidence of ill-informed people speaking when they should be keeping quiet. Boeing were prepared to put forward a 777 proposal in Sept of 2006 if the USAF's revised ORD (released Jan 2007) required it. But the 777 was uncompetitive as well (it would not meet the KC-135 footprint, whereas the 330 could - not to mention development costs), hence why the 767 was still put forward... and lost.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry -

Correction:

KC-Y should have been KC-X

Addition:

On the dirty dealings - even back in 2002, the EADS proposal was better and substantially cheaper (10 billion cheaper), but due to certain people in charge of appropriations getting backhanders, Boeing still got the offer.


By othercents on 3/11/2008 2:16:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
85% of Boeing products will be made here. 15% outsourced.

60% NGEADS products made here. 40% outsourced.

I love this argument. Your saying that if a 100% US made product came along the US Government should ALWAYS purchase it instead of the competition? Even if the product was less effective than any other competitor? I'm all for giving contracts to US companies, but only as a last resort given that both products come up as a dead heat.

Other


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Balls.

The $10 billion is the other way around.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
Not possible. 35 + 10 is well over the limit that the Air Force set for the project of 40 Billion.

Go read up some more, the original contract from Boeing was going to cost 23.5 Billion.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
The 767 deal was costing $31 billion or thereabouts.

I don't know where you get your figures, but they are out.

In the 2002 deal, the EADS offer came in at around $10 billion under the $33 billion or so Boeing proposed. But the "USAF" chose Boeing - this was later proven to be highly illegal with large conflicts of interest for some resulting in jail terms.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:32:03 PM , Rating: 1
Your numbers are completely wrong and you know. You've already pointed out your own mistake in your other posts. The original Boeing contract was 17.2 Billion which the GAO said might cost up to 23.5 Billion. Not this 31 crap you keep spewing out.

The Airbus contract is 35 Billion. Wonder what the GAO cost estimates will inflate this number to? Yeah it will probably end up costing 40+ Billion.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 3
See my other post.

I guess both the Congressional budget office and one of you Presidential nominees know less about the figures than you.

Boeings original plan:

CBO estimates the cost of leasing 100 of these aircraft would total about $31 billion over the 2003-2020 period.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3413&type=0

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 5:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but you aren't even beginning to understand the ins and outs of it.

First off, Boeing are not offering what EADS are offering, the 767 is far inferior in all measurable performance aspects.

2nd off, I've already stated the 767 line will be shut by the time the KC-Y contract comes up, which means non fleet commonality (I don't think many members on here truly grasp just how big an issue this is - in itself it should be enough to win the contract). The A330 line, in contrast is fully booked for a number of years yet.

3rd, the strong sales of the A330 means parts will be around much longer than for the 767, which will shortly become exclusive to the US, Japan and Italian airforces.


By mmatis on 3/11/2008 5:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
What did the RFP call for? It doesn't matter whether the Airbus is more capable than the 767 if the RFP didn't ask for that. USAF had an opportunity to ask for what they wanted. The offerors were supposed to bid to that, and USAF was supposed to evaluate the bids against the RFP. If they did, then this will be a fairly quick turnover. On the other hand...


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
if boeing gets this contract, the (kc)767 line will be open for the KC-y competition. There just won't be any commercial clients, forcing the airforce to pay all the costs for keeping the line open (hence the requirement of the airforce to consider the boeing offer as military instead of commercia derivative!)


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 5:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
Amiga500, where are you getting your information?

The 767 and A330 by specs are nearly identical in capabilities[per Boeing and Airbus web site information] save for the fact that the 767 can carry almost twice the cargo.

Furthermore, the 767 is not scheduled for "end of life" until 2016[again per Boeing's web site] and will be supported for the operational life of the fleet. If Boeing is putting in a bid using the 767 then it would mean that they are willing to cost effectively support the fleet for the life of the contract, which they have with the 707[KC-135].

The A330 has had strong sales, no doubt there, but in the passenger market only. The tanker market is quite another story. Half of Europe, most of Africa, most of South America and most of Asia use the 767 tankers. Heck, even the Russians have purchased 767 tankers.

Really, you need to quit spouting misinformation! You're making yourself look like a complete dolt!


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 6:05:24 PM , Rating: 4
I'm an aero engineer.

The 767 and 330 variants offered for this are NOTHING alike.

The 767 line is winding down and has only a few more years to go before closing off completely (2012 at latest without KC767 orders from USAF).

Boeing putting in an offer means Boeing are willing to make (effectively) bespoke parts for the USAF at a hideous price. That is NOT a good deal for the US taxpayer.

The KC-135 costs a bundle to keep flying - hence why the USAF are desperate for new tankers.

I don't know where you get this idea that the 767 has multiple tanker sales. Only Japan and Italy have bought the KC-767. Ironically you accuse me of spreading FUD while its you who is grossly incorrect!


By michael67 on 3/12/2008 8:17:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes, and I'm Mickey Mouse...

I am a offshore supervisor am I also lying ?

quote:
Correction, 2016...

They are all ready waiting for orders do you really think they keep the line open that long if they have no production?

quote:
Boeing has already committed to cost effectively supporting the 767 for the existing passenger fleet and will for the 767 tankers.

the KC-767 is going to be build on a end of life cicle airframe were the KC-30 is being build one a beginning of life cycle.
Basically the 767 frame is getting old.

quote:
Wrong again. The Air Force is desperate to replace the KC-135 because the air frames are aging beyond repair, not because parts are expensive...

And how dose that calculate back in being really expensive ?
If you have to repair it all the time it descend matter how cheap the parts are they are getting expensive if you need loads of them not to mention the man-ours

quote:
Do some more research...

I couldn’t find any flaws in his arguments ware yours are full of them.
"Only Japan and Italy have bought the KC-767"
I to couldn’t find any other countries that got them, and both are getting them beyond late!

I did a Google on "KC-30+KC-767+compair" this was the results I got back ignoring forums and so on.

Pro KC-30
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn062907.p...
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/KC30DearColleagueStr...
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/FinalNPCrev6.pdf
http://www.smartmoney.com/news/pr/index.cfm?story=...
http://www.fuckfrance.com/topic/2840405/1/FF-Enqui...
http://www.al.com/opinion/press-register/index.ssf...

In the middle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/boeing/tanker/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue_tan...

Pro KC-767
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1240.shtml
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/TankerPaper.pdf

Ridicules Pro KC-767
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/FuelC...
This one is saying KC-767 is better because it using less fuel then the KC-30.
Its like saying small truck is always better then a bigger one because it uses let fuel and totally ignores the fact that the bigger also carries more load and the prize of carried fuel per gallon to the combat zone is the same ore better

The ting I noticed was that all the post on the KC-30 ware pointing out facts why it was better

Ware the Pro KC-767 had headliners saying like:
THE KC-767: MORE AMERICAN MEANS MORE FOR AMERICA

And was just filed up whit patriotic mumble mumble instead of pointing out there, there and there are we better then the KC-30

Whit all the outsourcing Boeing dose I cant really see how they can get 44.000 extra jobs in the US
Ware the KC-30 proposal got detailed Nr's for there 25.000 jobs, whit "what were and how" is going to get jobs, Boeing just throws a Nr in the air and says these are the Nr of Americans that are getting jobs, and they start waving the flag, whiteout producing a single document whit the lay down of real job Nr's

It looks to me like, by being arrogant and thinking were American we just have to wave the flag and we got the deal, instead they lost to the better tanker.

Maybe they will wake up and see, if your not competitive you lose,
Maybe then they will come whit a better competitive deal and more worked out proposal next round then Northrop Grumman whit there stinking EU partners.

Think in the end we all win by keeping Boeing sharp and get them from there fat asses

Funny detail what I was reading in all of this, if they hadn’t fucked up the deal in 2002 by cheating they would properly had the deal now,
Because airbus would have never bin ready whit the package the have now to offer and a plain that all ready is flying.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
It definitely was the case for the original offers in 2002 - I'll have to check, but I'd guess that was maintained in this round as well.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
Its becoming obvious to me I am wasting my time with you.

You don't know what your talking about, and are pulling figures from your rear end.

The "original deal" was a lease by Boeing, which the government priced as costing them over $30 billion. Many variants were later investigated as a means of lowering the cost, before the whole thing was re-started.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
You can't explain it. The original Boeing contract was 17.2 Billion. The GAO estimates it might cost 23.5 Billion. The Airbus contract will cost us 35 Billion.

A lease to buy deal that would have cost us 10+ Billion less than when we will pay for now.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 3:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Rubbish. Absolute utter crap.

The GAO estimated the original Boeing contract would have cost them the far side of $30 billion.

Go read John McCain's own site to get some accurate figures:

http://mccain.senate.gov/

"the Airbus price was $5 million to $17 million cheaper per plane than Boeing's 767."

Unless you think a man running for president is going to lie about this.

Or go to the congressional budget office. All figures over $30 billion.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The GAO estimated the original Boeing contract would have cost them the far side of $30 billion.

Thanks to more than 4 years of investigations and market inflation all resulting after McCain's inquiry.

quote:
Unless you think a man running for president is going to lie about this.

Not a compelling argument.


RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By Cygni on 3/11/2008 4:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, 31b for the KC-767 leases, or 34b for the vastly more capable A330/KC-45A... choices, choices...


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 4:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
17.2 for the leases. 23.5 overall. 31 now that we've blown 4 years of investigations, redesigns, etc.

Now we will pay 35. Not to mention we have two more deals to go to refit the fleet.

We are going to loose 30-34.5 Billion if not more over the next three deals for one plane or the other when both exceed what the Air Force is looking for.


By CubicleDilbert on 3/11/2008 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 1
Actually,

why all the fuss about either $25B or $30B?

In other news I just saw that the Iraq war burns around $12B PER MONTH!

So, all these planes cost not much more than a few weeks/months in Iraq!!!!!
An then McCain trumpets to the press that we might stay another 100 years in Iraq if neccessary.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 6:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Thats potentially 15 Billion thats dedicated to new spending, not the war, which is a nice diversionary tactic btw.

Thats a half dozen B-2's.

100 F22's.

100's of a mixture of other crafts.

Extrapolate to whatever plane you wish...


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 2:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love this argument. Your saying that if a 100% US made product came along the US Government should ALWAYS purchase it instead of the competition?

Another export that will now be turned into an import commodity. The bleeding continues to grow.

Still can't figure out why the economy is slowing and the trade deficit isn't getting any better can you?

Original Boeing contract would have cost 23.5 Billion for a plane that met the specifications. Now we are suckered into a slightly better plane for 35 Billion much of which will go overseas.


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 5:59:27 PM , Rating: 3
then again - the kc 767 would not have created any jobs - just kept poeple working on the 767 instead of beeing transferred to the 787.
The kc 330 will create whole new line. Don't think EADS will only be building the kc there. Airbus is frantic about getting work done in the US - They want to help your economy!, mostly because when the exchange rate between the euro and dollar really hits airbus - they're dead without some massive US dollar turnover.
The kc 45 will create more new jobs than boeing ever will - not just for the kc, also for the a330F's they'll build on the same site!


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 6:41:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the kc 767 would not have created any jobs - just kept poeple working on the 767 instead of beeing transferred to the 787

This makes no sense. If they have both the 787 and 767 they can't transfer people from the 767 plant. They will have to hire people for the 767 plus whatever they need for the 787 line.
quote:
They want to help your economy!

Do you know how silly that sounds. They want to make money, no more no less.
And No, this will not help the economy. Their money will be sent overseas, this doesn't help our economy at all. It increases the deficit every time we buy an additional part from the EU at a horrible exchange rate.
quote:
when the exchange rate between the euro and dollar really hits airbus - they're dead without some massive US dollar turnover

What??? This makes zero sense. The exchange rate means nothing to Airbus, its the Air Force thats forking over the money. In any means importing more goods WILL NOT HELP THE ECONOMY. We have to get exports up and imports down.


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 7:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
pt 1) you're right. I guess I meant to say it wouldn't cost any US jobs. however many people boeing would've assigned to the kc767, NG-EADS will create at least as many new jobs in Mobile.

pt 2) Offcourse boeing is different? NG is (was?) the contractor for this contract. Profit will go to them. Eads is sub-contractor.

pt 3) This is not a cost plus pricing contract. It's a fixed price contract. NG-EADS takes the fall for the exchange rate.
Airbus is constantly hit by the weak dollar. Airplanes are bought in dollars, EU work is payed for in Euro's. Current hedging contracts help EADS till about 2010, Then they'll have to face the full exchange rate!. That,s a 60% fall in income right there.

You're right, importing products is not the way to improve the domestic market. Importing production will! EADS will build a complete factory for this contract, 15 airplanes a year is not an efficient use of such an investment. That's why airbus will relocate all a330F construction to the US, and possibly other programs to. Again, make sure much of your costs are payed in the same currency (or one with a positive exchange rate) as your costs. Simple economics dictates that airbus is verry interested in selling EU production plants (which tey are) and buying US production capacity (which tey will, independant of this kc contract!)


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Airbus are going to move the A330F line to Mobile if they get the contract. As I said at the bottom of the page, you can be assured more orders will go to Mobile with the low dollar and Airbus being capacity restrained at the moment.

As for your comment regarding "the 767 makes up a vast majority of the current refueling platform" - thats wrong. Only Japan and Italy use the 767 as tankers - and believe me, they will get screwed for parts in the future.

The USAF uses KC-10 (DC-10) and KC-135 (737) tankers.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Airbus are going to move the A330F line to Mobile if they get the contract. As I said at the bottom of the page, you can be assured more orders will go to Mobile with the low dollar and Airbus being capacity restrained at the moment.

Uh, which will bring them from 0 to 60%.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
You choose to neglect the other orders coming in (like the A330F) which is not considered part of the workshare for the tanker contract.

The KC-45 deal will almost certainly see more jobs created in the US than the 767 deal through expansion of Airbus' manufacturing facilities in the dollar zone.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs will be created either way. The job count is nothing but an estimate at the moment and will without doubt change.

But more of the money will be staying here and it would be cheaper with the Boeing plan.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes... did you see the pathetic Boeing "estimate".

A more accurate figure would be about half of what they said.

Do you want me to break out the crayons to try and explain what Airbus bringing civilian production lines to Mobile means?


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Subtracting jobs from one place and adding to another doesn't mean much of anything overall. Yeah Mobile will benefit but Everett will degrade.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 3:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
Subtracting jobs from one place and adding to another doesn't mean much of anything overall.

Really?

Then why exactly are you against the A330? Its the better package all round.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:59:26 PM , Rating: 1
10+ Billion more for the Airbus deal. Probably much more over time with the increasing deficit.

This deal is only one of three deals the Air Force will make to replace the fleet. The cost will end up being well over 30+ Billion more if the next two contracts end up going the same way.

More money going overseas in an already turbulent economy in an industry where the exports are currently very high and one of the few bright spots.

Both are more capable than the model they are replacing so its really a moot point seeing as the Air Force can go anywhere in the world it pleases at the moment. Given they overshadow the current model the economics are the key issue.


RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By Cygni on 3/11/2008 4:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
Its more like 3b more for the Airbus deal (vs the original KC-767 lease), for a vastly more capable aircraft. Your philosophy of the KC-767 being 'good enough' just because its better than the 707 based KC-135 isnt exactly a great comparison, as the KC-135 has greatly struggled in providing Pacific service, forcing our KC-10 Extenders to base out of Northern California.

The A330/KC-45A provided the Air Force what it wanted. Greater Pacific service capabilities with the ability to limit some of the 'Tanker leapfrog' suffered by the KC-135, and also the ability to help alleviate some pressure from the ridiculously in demand airlift assets of the Air Force. Both of these points the KC-767 couldnt address. Thats why Boeing lost.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
The difference you are citing is the GAO's recent estimate of Boeing after 4 years of market changes versus Airbus's word. Much like Boeing word of 17.2B in 2004. The GAO will inevitably make that 3B a much larger number when they do an independent estimate of the Airbus contract and take into account market changes.

The numbers will inevitably change and they won't be going down.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 5:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
The capabilities of the A330 and the 767 are nearly identical to varying degrees. The cost of upfront cost and upkeep are what make the 767 a better choice, both now and in the future. Boeing lost because someone made a bad decision. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes, but when things like this come to light, I get very angry. The 767 is the better choice from nearly every angle and will not cost as much.


RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By Cygni on 3/11/2008 5:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
You are woefully uninformed. The KC-767 and A330/KC-30 are not nearly identical. The KC-30 carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel, as well as having much greater transport capability. It also offers long time service cost advantages over the KC-767. It will also be available much sooner than the KC-767 (41 in the time it would take to recieve 17 KC-767 from Boeing.

Simply look at this size comparison:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...

Or hear it from the Air Force itself: 'Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, commander of Air Mobility Command, said that the Northrop/EADS KC-30 had been chosen because it offered “more cargo, more fuel offload, more passengers and more availability."'


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 6:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks, but I'm going to go with manufacturers specs, rather then take your word for it. Both sets of specs are freely available on their respective web sites...

The A330 can carry 36,700 lbs of fuel. The 767 can carry 23,900 lbs of fuel. Yet they both have the same range, and the fact that the 767 can land on shorter runways would make it a more versitile aircraft. Both of these fuel numbers are for aircraft usage itself not for refueling uses... Do your research a bit better. Maybe this is why the EADS got the bid, they made the argument that just because the A330 is bigger physically it could do and carry more, which is false, and the higher ups in the Air Force bought into it...


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 6:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
are you high - do you even know what the difference between a b767 and a330 is... go do some homework!


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 6:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm not high. You seem to be. And I do my homework before I open my mouth. Which is why I can say with confidence that the information I've stated is correct.

Any other wise-cracks?


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 8:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know it's just marketing material, but comparing with boeing's marketing info, only the maximum number of patients differs - which may just be a difference between the term litter and patient.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/d...


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 8:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Compare this with the boeing couterpart -

Wich would you choose???

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767...


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 8:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
That link is just marketing mumbo-jumbo. The A330 airframe is not designed to handle the load required without extensive and costly modifications. The 777, is more qualified to handle the loads the Air Force requires. And that is without extensive modifications. The 777, instead of the 767, would have been the aircraft Boeing submitted in the bid if they had been properly informed of the change in requirements, which it would seem they weren't.


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 8:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The A330 airframe is not designed to handle the load required without extensive and costly modifications

Uhm... I heard the KC45 will be an 1:1 copy of the (flying) KC30, with some software, electronic and US specific changes - another paintjob and such.

The boeing offer was deemed more rskfull because they offered an aircraft that exists only on paper. Boeing did not offer the kc767 as it has been sold to japan and italy - they wanted to get funding to create a whole new hybrid of all the 767 versions - hence the frankentanker.
They had the option of offering the 777. They had the option of offering both the 777 and 767. They didn't - their choice. They'd rather have the usaf finance a new version of a no longer selling aircraft than invest in an capacity increase for the production line of the great-selling 777. Their choice.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 8:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm... I heard the KC45 will be an 1:1 copy of the (flying) KC30, with some software, electronic and US specific changes - another paintjob and such.

The KC-45 uses the EXACT SAME airframe as the A330 MRTT.

Another instance of lexluthermiester not even able to display google info never mind real knowledge or wisdom to back it up.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 9:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they had differing airframes. Another instance of Amiga500 sticking his foot in his mouth. Learn how to read...

I said that the A330 airframe would have to be extensively modified to support the loads the Air Force needs of it.


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 8:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
also, it may just be marketing mumbo-jumbo, but is it false???


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 9:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Outright false? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Twisted truth? Yes.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 4:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Amiga500,

You seem to continually put you foot in your mouth.

First, there are very many more countries using the 767 tankers than just Japan and Italy. Now I'm not well versed on the exact number, but it would, in fact, be accurate to say the 767 tanker is greatly used through out the world.

Second, NONE of those countries are charged any more than US operators for parts. Any additional costs for them would be in transporting said parts, which isn't much.

Third, The KC-135 is a modified 707 , not a 737.

Are you in the habit of spouting misinformation?


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 5:33:24 PM , Rating: 3
First, there are very many more countries using the 767 tankers than just Japan and Italy.

Name them.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 6:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
I feel no need to...


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 7:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because they don't exist you ido!t!

Ahh feck it. What is the point in arguing with stupid people. Here is me wasting my time arguing with two people that probably don't even know the difference between an aileron and an elevator.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 8:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
80C2 is a 80A with a slightly enlarge fan diameter, extra LP turbine stage and a higher OPR. The C2 has a higher BPR as a result of the larger fan and higher fan loading.

Now. Something you cannot find easily with google.

Give me the two equations for turbulence viscosity as used within the industry standard 2-equation RANS turbulence models within CFD.

Run along boy - your way out of your depth here.


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 8:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
are we going to quote bernoulli during a discussion on the wisdom of Boeing in fighting the USAF choice of the KC-X winner???

c'mon children - play nice.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're not an engineer. You missed two of the three main differences between the two engines and you could have looked up the first on wikipedia. There are of course many small mechanical changes though-out the two engines, the main changes where the aforementioned fan blade array diameters. Next are the fuel consumption ratios and noise output ratios. The 80C2 is more fuel efficient and quieter than it's 80A counter part. The 80C3 improves upon those points ever further.

Now I may be a bit out of my depth, but I never claimed to be an aerospace engineer either. You sir are nothing more than a fraud. You missed two critical points to a very basic question that ANY aerospace engineer would have got right...


By Amiga500 on 3/12/2008 5:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
the main changes where the aforementioned fan blade array diameters. Next are the fuel consumption ratios and noise output ratios. The 80C2 is more fuel efficient and quieter than it's 80A counter part.

You silly little child.

The sfc improvements come from the extra turbine stage and the higher operating pressure ratio. The noise improvement comes from the higher bypass ratio.

But, of course, if you actually had knowledge instead of google data you'd know that.


By blowfish on 3/11/2008 9:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
A rudder! Now you're talking! Isn't that the control surface that Boeing are not very good at? Their poor rudder control system causing several 737's to crash when the rudder moved in the opposite direction to that commanded by the pilot?

So did Boeing replace the control systems when they discovered the fault? No, they carried on covering up crashes, blaming them on pilot error, that old chestnut.

In the meantime, the airlines at least started training their pilots on how to react when the rudder did it's "excusion" thing.

To this day, not all 737's have had the replacement parts fitted. That's Boeing for you. I'm nervous every time I have to fly on a 737.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 10:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the accidents you speak of were due to a malfunction in a hydraulic valve that had an unknown temperature differential problem. This valve was manufactured buy a company under Boeing contract, not by Boeing themselves. Per NTSB advisement and FAA order, all 737's fitted with the valve in question were replaced with properly functioning units. Note, not all 737's were fitted with this particular valve. Not Boeing's fault.

Blaming Boeing for these accidents would be like blaming Airbus for the A330 crash in the Azores. Not their fault.


By Cygni on 3/11/2008 5:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
The KC-767 has only been ordered by the Italian Air Force, and the Japanese Defense Force. 4 each.

It also competed against the A330-MRTT in Australia and the UK, and as in the US, lost.


RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By rcc on 3/12/2008 1:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The USAF uses KC-10 (DC-10) and KC-135 (737) tankers.


KC-135 should read (707)


By Amiga500 on 3/12/2008 4:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed it should - apologies.


By boogle on 3/11/2008 2:46:12 PM , Rating: 4
Are you saying the US should only buy from pre-approved local vendors? A bit like the Soviets did? Hmmm.

You can either have a free market, or not. It works both ways, and it always sucks to be on the bad-end. But it's great to be on the good end.

To put it another way: Would you rather have your CAP (or long-range bombers) in the air for a long time, defending your life. Or would you rather save a little cash (and that's debateable), but risk having no CAP, and therefore lose a major city? Extreme example I know, but in the military the needs come before everything else.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't know the bombers currently had a cap? Seems to me they can go anywhere whenever they want as is. Are you saying we should spend 10 Billion more for no real world gains?


By boogle on 3/11/2008 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 4
CAP is 'Combat Air Patrol'. Basically a patrol of fighters constantly in the air to intercept enemies. They use in-air refueling so they can stay in the air longer and therefore protect whatever it is they're protecting. Usually the people they're protecting would rather they were in the air, than on the ground refueling.

Bombers are another matter, they do have a very long range - but they still require in-air refueling. Often more than once on a long-range mission. This is so the bombers (especially B2s) can be based far, far away from the front lines.

So as you can imagine, a good in-air refueling system is very, very important and you don't want to skimp on it. They're also dual-purpose and can evacuate casualties, since they're large long-range aircraft already in the area. Always nice to be evacuated, and it would seem a big reason for going with the Airbus aircraft is it can carry more casualties.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
big reason for going with the Airbus aircraft is it can carry more casualties.


That is totally false! The 767 can carry a maximum of 375 people or 110.5 tons of whatever you want to carry and has a range of 5,625 NM. The A330 can only carry 335 people or 62.3 tons and has a range of 5,669 NM. The 767 can carry a little less than twice as much and travel a nearly identical distance. And the Boeing bid was well below that of EADS.

The more reading I do about this the more angry I get, and the more I understand Boeing's outrage.


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 5:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 767 can carry a little less than twice as much


I of course meant payload, not people.


By boogle on 3/11/2008 5:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually to quote the original article:

quote:
For its part, the Air Force is sticking by its decision to go with the KC-45A design. The KC-45A simply offered " more passengers , more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry , more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," according to Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte.


Basically you're talking about the airliner, rather than the refuel version. Having said that the airliner can only carry 245 passengers (with 3 class divisions): http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_s...