KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS

[guppy]

Who loses the most in a e-competition? The end users. The ppl who needs it the most. Who gains the most in a re-competition? Hmmm...At the end of the day, who cares for the needs of the warfighter? I am so sorry that this has come to such a sad state of affairs.

Sigh...

guppy

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[RubiconNZ]

Who loses the most in a e-competition? The end users. The ppl who needs it the most. Who gains the most in a re-competition? Hmmm...At the end of the day, who cares for the needs of the warfighter? I am so sorry that this has come to such a sad state of affairs.

Sigh...

guppy

What a ridiculous situation, a badly needed asset being held up, Why?
Because it was better that the other aircraft, imagine that, choosing a more capable product in a competitive situation. I wonder it there is any way to begin a interim buy the first 40 aircraft, thus beginning production, if by chance the contract goes to Boeing, either on sell or modify for other operations, it would at least get the ball rolling, I imagine it is not possible but it would seem the only way to get production sooner than later.

 

[swerve]

Hi swerve, I think you have made your stand in favour of the KC-45 pretty clear from the last round of exchanges.....

Yes, but I've also made it clear that I think that the USAF should have bought the 767 first time round. Of course, if that deal had been clean, it would have done.

Thinking about the cancelled 767 contract, one must wonder about a corporate culture that can't resist corrupt practices when bidding for a contract in which it had no competitors. What sort of thinking does it take to cheat when you're going to win anyway?

 

[guppy]

Yes, but I've also made it clear that I think that the USAF should have bought the 767 first time round. Of course, if that deal had been clean, it would have done.

Thinking about the cancelled 767 contract, one must wonder about a corporate culture that can't resist corrupt practices when bidding for a contract in which it had no competitors. What sort of thinking does it take to cheat when you're going to win anyway?

This, I totally agree. What kind of company does that? Why should Boeing be given a second chance? I must say that I am personally biased though. I have little tolerance for arrogance, and even less for dishonesty. I wished that NG gets the contract for these reasons alone.

In any case, I don't like Boeing products personally. I have seen some of it up close and personal, and they are not the most impressive, espeically when you compare them to the competition.

Trivia Pursuit: Which US Air to Air fighter is falling apart in the sky?

I rest my case, cos I am getting too biased. No offence to anyone.

cheers

guppy

 

[superhornet]

This, I totally agree. What kind of company does that? Why should Boeing be given a second chance? I must say that I am personally biased though. I have little tolerance for arrogance, and even less for dishonesty. I wished that NG gets the contract for these reasons alone.

In any case, I don't like Boeing products personally. I have seen some of it up close and personal, and they are not the most impressive, espeically when you compare them to the competition.

Trivia Pursuit: Which US Air to Air fighter is falling apart in the sky?

I rest my case, cos I am getting too biased. No offence to anyone.

cheers

guppy

yeah, basically , i think AF will not launch a rebid procedure taking cosideration of time and money. now, the situation is that AF need to replace its aging KC-135 tanker fleet as soon as possible because KC-135 has been in service for nearly 50 years. its life has come to end. therefore, i predict that AF is inclined to modify the criteria of evaluation to cope with GAO and Congress. anyway, AF will not give the contract to boeing. And GN will finnally win the contract although it seems now they have a little trouble in the path.

i'm completely with you. a cheating and dishonest company, boeing is bound to receive some penalties. BYW, i believe AF need a bigger tanker due to constant long-range combat mission and humanitarian relief workings

 

[weasel1962]

Deleted

 

[swerve]

The full "edited" report is out. Explosive stuff. Apparently, the GAO doubts that the KC-30 even satisfies key performance indicator KPP no 1.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf

Which of the 67 pages is that on?

 

[Grand Danois]

Which of the 67 pages is that on?

p.2 # 3. 3. Protest is sustained, where the record does not demonstrate the reasonableness of the agency’s determination that the awardee’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

However, if the same premise is applied to the KC-767, is it in compliance?

The rest is procedural/contractual - nothing to do with what provides the USG, the US taxpayer and the US warfighter with the best value for money.

(I skimmed it, and it seems whenever capability is compared on the rest of the 65 of 67 pg., the KC-30/45 is ahead of the KC-767 and GAO implicitly acknowledges that by drawing these details into a ruling on contractual fairness & propriety.)

 

[swerve]

I've now skimmed it. Some of the deletions are a little irritating. My take is this:

The poor USAF is in a bind. It's evaluated the A330, & decided that it meets its requirements in every crucial area, though the 767 exceeds it in some, & is far superior to the 767 in two areas, i.e. fuel offload at range, & transport capability. Because of those superiorities, it wants the A330, rather than the 767. But it isn't allowed to make those the determining factors for the selection, since the A330 was known beforehand to comfortably exceed the 767 in those areas, & to make them determining factors would therefore lead to Boeing protesting (probably successfully) that the competition was rigged in favour of the A330.

The USAF therefore tried to fudge the selection to make the A330 appear to have a big advantage in the criteria it was allowed to select as critical. But it's been caught out.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[guppy]

The full "edited" report is out. Explosive stuff. Apparently, the GAO doubts that the KC-30 even satisfies key performance indicator KPP no 1.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf

Thanks for the link weasel.

Prejudiced language often used. Not what I would expect from an impartial agent. Nevertheless, there are some valid points. The legalistic language is a pain in the you know where also. So it is a protest by Boeing about the way the competition was held but not a protest against the award of the contract to NG? Thus it is ok to protest more than 10 days after the announcement because some obscure clause allows them to do so??? Man, this is too heavy for me. Luckily, I don't have to contend with these things anhymore.

Yet, what would I rather choose?

1. A tanker that has more range, and fuel offload but requires some minor changes to existing procedures (for certain aircraft only) or

2. A tanker that has less range and less fuel to offload but adheres to all current procudres.

In any case, the USAF dorked up...again

cheers

guppy

 

[rjmaz1]

Yet, what would I rather choose?

1. A tanker that has more range, and fuel offload but requires some minor changes to existing procedures (for certain aircraft only) or

2. A tanker that has less range and less fuel to offload but adheres to all current procudres.

Thats far from the truth.

1) Sure the A330 carries more fuel on takeoff however it also consumes that fuel at a higher rate. So the A330 has roughly 30,000kg extra fuel at takeoff than the 767. If it uses half of that fuel due to the extra weight/drag of the larger airframe it may translate into only 15,000kg of extra fuel for the fighters.

2) More 767 based tankers will be able to be purchased due to their cheaper purchase costs and operating costs. If the 767 carried 30% less fuel but you could afford 30% more aircraft then the 767 is the better choice. The better choice because you have just as much fuel in the air but a greater number of locations for pilots to refuel. However it seems the 767 isn't 30% cheaper to make up for its lower fuel capacity, so it is rather even comparison.

If they choose the KC-45 they will get more fuel in the air but they can only be at so many locations at once. Having fewer KC-45's they will have to be spaced further apart so fighters will have to travel further to refuel.

I'd much prefer 5 KC-767 tankers in the air, supporting my air campaign than 4 KC-45 tankers.

IMO if the USAF with a set budget could afford more than 15% extra KC-767 tankers, then the 767 should win. If only say 10% more KC-767 tankers could be purchased for the money then thats not enough aircraft to make up for the lower fuel capacity and i'd go with the KC-45.

You can alter the requirements to give an advantage to either aircraft.

 

[alexsa]

Thats far from the truth.

1) Sure the A330 carries more fuel on takeoff however it also consumes that fuel at a higher rate. So the A330 has roughly 30,000kg extra fuel at takeoff than the 767. If it uses half of that fuel due to the extra weight/drag of the larger airframe it may translate into only 15,000kg of extra fuel for the fighters.

.

But does it? Are you sure the 330 airframe has extra drag noting it is a newer airframe and wing design than the 767? As it appears the A330 can a achieve a slightly higher economical max cruise speed (only 4km/h to be honest) on the basis of two (64,000lb) Pratt & Whitney PW-4164s compared to the 767 with two (60,000lb) CF6-80C2B6s despite the higher weights you would have to consider that the airframe is quite efficient.

I expect the KC45 will use higher rate engines (normally 67500 lb) but it serves the point. Sure it will burn 'a bit more fuel' but it will delivery a lot more further and for large scale operations that means less tankers required as far as is can see.

Finally airlines are not buying 767's and the line will close without this order. Why buy an older generation airframe that will be and orphan soon. Given the life of the KC135 these birds will be around for a while.;

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[guppy]

Thats far from the truth.

1) Sure the A330 carries more fuel on takeoff however it also consumes that fuel at a higher rate. So the A330 has roughly 30,000kg extra fuel at takeoff than the 767. If it uses half of that fuel due to the extra weight/drag of the larger airframe it may translate into only 15,000kg of extra fuel for the fighters.

2) More 767 based tankers will be able to be purchased due to their cheaper purchase costs and operating costs. If the 767 carried 30% less fuel but you could afford 30% more aircraft then the 767 is the better choice. The better choice because you have just as much fuel in the air but a greater number of locations for pilots to refuel. However it seems the 767 isn't 30% cheaper to make up for its lower fuel capacity, so it is rather even comparison.

If they choose the KC-45 they will get more fuel in the air but they can only be at so many locations at once. Having fewer KC-45's they will have to be spaced further apart so fighters will have to travel further to refuel.

I'd much prefer 5 KC-767 tankers in the air, supporting my air campaign than 4 KC-45 tankers.

IMO if the USAF with a set budget could afford more than 15% extra KC-767 tankers, then the 767 should win. If only say 10% more KC-767 tankers could be purchased for the money then thats not enough aircraft to make up for the lower fuel capacity and i'd go with the KC-45.

You can alter the requirements to give an advantage to either aircraft.

Not quite true rjmaz. The more fuel efficient airframe is the NG/EADS A330 and it is noted in the GAO report and it is necessary to do modeling to determine the more efficient airframe. For tankers, it is also a little bit more complex.

The airframe efficiency is the reason which I suspect is causing a max airspeed issue with the breakaway procedures. It has to do with the airframe design. Look at the GAO report more closely, and you will note that the A330 has exceptional short field (7000ft) takeoff performance. Another indicator on the performance objective of the A330.

But you have a valid point with regards to having more aircraft available.

cheers

guppy

 

[Magoo]

Thats far from the truth.

1) Sure the A330 carries more fuel on takeoff however it also consumes that fuel at a higher rate. So the A330 has roughly 30,000kg extra fuel at takeoff than the 767. If it uses half of that fuel due to the extra weight/drag of the larger airframe it may translate into only 15,000kg of extra fuel for the fighters.

2) More 767 based tankers will be able to be purchased due to their cheaper purchase costs and operating costs. If the 767 carried 30% less fuel but you could afford 30% more aircraft then the 767 is the better choice. The better choice because you have just as much fuel in the air but a greater number of locations for pilots to refuel. However it seems the 767 isn't 30% cheaper to make up for its lower fuel capacity, so it is rather even comparison.

If they choose the KC-45 they will get more fuel in the air but they can only be at so many locations at once. Having fewer KC-45's they will have to be spaced further apart so fighters will have to travel further to refuel.

I'd much prefer 5 KC-767 tankers in the air, supporting my air campaign than 4 KC-45 tankers.

IMO if the USAF with a set budget could afford more than 15% extra KC-767 tankers, then the 767 should win. If only say 10% more KC-767 tankers could be purchased for the money then thats not enough aircraft to make up for the lower fuel capacity and i'd go with the KC-45.

You can alter the requirements to give an advantage to either aircraft.

RJMAZ1 - as usual you let yourself down, this time in two ways - one is you basically speak a load of bollocks! (sorry Mods, but he does!) The other is you can't even get the name of the tankers right!

The new tanker, regardless of who wins the competition, will be called KC-45A in service. Northrop/EADS has pitched the KC-30, and Boeing the KC-767AT for the contract.

It is not a set budget and "lets see how many tankers we can get for the money." The KC-X/KC-45 is a set requirement for 179 aircraft...period!

Geesh... :lam

 

[rjmaz1]

But you have a valid point with regards to having more aircraft available.

I think this is definitely a factor.

If you require X number of tankers and one tanker provides 10% less fuel to the fighters but costs 20% less to purchase then it can be the more attractive option even though it will provide less capability per aircraft. The money saved can be put to better use, or even buying more total number of tankers..

If money was no object or no budget was set as Magoo suggested, then you would buy the best, largest, longest ranged aircraft available if you could only buy 179 aircraft. Even if you paid 10 times as much for double the capability you would do that if there was no set budget. Thankfully Magoo is incorrect and value for money comes into play.

Magoo thanks for picking up that technicality however weasel1962, alexsa and guppy have all called the A330 tanker the KC-45 in this thread. So does Northrop Grumman on their website.

 

[Magoo]

If money was no object or no budget was set as Magoo suggested...

I'm sorry, but where did I suggest that? I said the requirement is for 179 aircraft, which it is, and not, as you suggest, for "as many aircraft as we can get for $30 billion." Ofcourse there's a budget, and that amount would have been specified in the tender documents as a requirement each bidder should meet.

... then you would buy the best, largest, longest ranged aircraft available if you could only buy 179 aircraft. Even if you paid 10 times as much for double the capability you would do that if there was no set budget. Thankfully Magoo is incorrect and value for money comes into play.

Ok, I'll play your silly game. Let's just say, for argument's sake there was an unlimited budget so, following your esteemed advice, the USAF decided to order 179 KC-380s. Where are you going to park 179 80m x 80m aircraft that require much higher pavement weights than anything except a 777-300ER? Why would you launch a KC-380 for a mission to drag one or two fighters across the US when an aircraft less than half the size would do it for a fraction of the cost and energy?

Think harder RJMAZ!

Magoo thanks for picking up that technicality however weasel1962, alexsa and guppy have all called the A330 tanker the KC-45 in this thread. So does Northrop Grumman on their website.

Doesn't make it right. NG's use of the KC-45 name is probably so people can get used to using it in reference to their KC-30, but the KC-30 marketing name is still the name of the aircraft until the KC-45 contract is signed.

 

[rjmaz1]

Let's just say, for argument's sake there was an unlimited budget so,

Why would you launch a KC-380 for a mission to drag one or two fighters across the US when an aircraft less than half the size would do it for a fraction of the cost and energy?.

You just answered your question.

If they had an unlimited budget they wouldn't care if it cost more to drag one or two fighters across the US.

If the 767 is signifcantly cheaper with only a slight reduction in capability then it should be purchased. The money saved can be put to use elsewhere or to put to buying more tankers in the future.

Also you just gave a perfect example of why a bigger tanker doesn't always mean better. Being bigger seems to be one of the reasons why the A330 was selected

However we dont know the exact numbers. The A330 may cost only 10% more yet offer 20% more fuel. That clearly makes it a better option value for money wise.