EADS/Airbus has not withdrawn. Northrop Grumman has withdrawn. The A330 MRTT is therefore out of the competition unless EADS can find a new US partner. EADS has refused to comment on suggestions that it might seek a new partner, but I think it could be too late.
KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS
- Thread starter Magoo
- Start date
There's nothing in either link to say that Boeing had a lower acquisition cost.
?? First of all bid (acquisition) price is NOT based on life cycle cost. If anything, it's the other way around. Life cycle cost is based on acquistion cost (+ fuel + maintenance + milcon)
Secondly, yes i used a source that said the cost is lower to substantiate that the cost is lower.
What was I supposed to do? Use a source that said the cost is higher to substantiate that the cost is lower?
I truly think we're not communicating here.
I never said life cycle cost is irrelevant, I said the difference in life cycle cost was so small it was irrelevant.
As for the rest of your statement, you're going to have to help me decipher it.
Are you saying I should have determined the acquisition cost of the two bids not from the bids themselves, but from marketing brochures for the civilian planes?
Yup, they just confirmed that they won't bid.
No EADS KC-X Solo Bid, Says Gallois
There really was no time to put together a new team and bid in 2 months.
If they had wanted a bid that bad, they should have given NG more subsidies/guarantees to convince them to bid.
Yes, it was inevitable that EADS would pull out when NG did. I presume the initial refusal to comment was just waiting for the word from the top.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
EADS is unlikely to be able to put up a better bid going alone. NG has the access to the suppliers. Even if NG were to provide the source links to the suppliers (which they are unlikely to do so), EADs is unlikely to be able to negotiate a better price. I'm sure EADs would have considered this possibility at the negotiations stage. That will affect the base production and critics of overseas outsourcing will be given extra ammo.
An EADS bid won't change the fundamental basis either. No additional points for additional capability not needed = the sole offset for higher cost disappears.
Even if EADS subsidised the bid, it won't change the decision matrix that disadvantages the bigger aircraft.
The problem is that if the DoD had given points for more tanker offload, Boeing is now in a position to roll out the KC-777 which would have trumped the A330 in offload capacity. And the DoD would have been stuck with a mega white elephant, paying for capabilities that the air force doesn't need.
For me, the critical error for EADs was not contesting the GAO decision when it was being deliberated. They could have financed studies that may have influenced the outcome but the approach was on hindsight too passive. EADs could have studied how a larger tanker might improve tanker ops that challenges the historical offload data. Without any challenge, the historical offload data pointed to a conclusion that forced the af to re-conduct the bid and for the new RFP to contain provisions that did not provide any incentive for a larger tanker.
Its a logical conclusion. It is also clear that the DoD is now also prepared for a sole-source bid.
I'm only surprised the republicans haven't jumped on Obama's no-bid contracts promise yet.
EADS is unlikely to be able to put up a better bid going alone. NG has the access to the suppliers. Even if NG were to provide the source links to the suppliers (which they are unlikely to do so), EADs is unlikely to be able to negotiate a better price. I'm sure EADs would have considered this possibility at the negotiations stage. That will affect the base production and critics of overseas outsourcing will be given extra ammo.
An EADS bid won't change the fundamental basis either. No additional points for additional capability not needed = the sole offset for higher cost disappears.
Even if EADS subsidised the bid, it won't change the decision matrix that disadvantages the bigger aircraft.
The problem is that if the DoD had given points for more tanker offload, Boeing is now in a position to roll out the KC-777 which would have trumped the A330 in offload capacity. And the DoD would have been stuck with a mega white elephant, paying for capabilities that the air force doesn't need.
For me, the critical error for EADs was not contesting the GAO decision when it was being deliberated. They could have financed studies that may have influenced the outcome but the approach was on hindsight too passive. EADs could have studied how a larger tanker might improve tanker ops that challenges the historical offload data. Without any challenge, the historical offload data pointed to a conclusion that forced the af to re-conduct the bid and for the new RFP to contain provisions that did not provide any incentive for a larger tanker.
Its a logical conclusion. It is also clear that the DoD is now also prepared for a sole-source bid.
I'm only surprised the republicans haven't jumped on Obama's no-bid contracts promise yet.
fretburner
Banned Member
This is a classic market-push vs market-pull, IMO...
EADS: "USAF, this bigger and 'better' tanker is what YOU need"
Boeing: "USAF, what do you need? We'll build it"
Guess who won?
EADS was absolutely convinced that the USAF needs a bigger and "better" tanker and so they tried to sway the customers to create an RFP which favors a bigger tanker, which is essentially telling the customers to create a market for their tanker. Boeing on the other hand, and at least on the last round, just asked what the USAF needs, and whether that is a bigger or a smaller tanker, they will build one.
Sometimes, the market-push "strategy" works...but most of the time, it does not - think Sony digital player with their own proprietary digital audio format versus Apple's iPod taking advantage of the mp3 format. Sony wanted the world to convert to their "better" proprietary format, while Apple created a product which plays what was already a popular format, the mp3. Sony was almost single-handidly brought down by Apple.
EADS: "USAF, this bigger and 'better' tanker is what YOU need"
Boeing: "USAF, what do you need? We'll build it"
Guess who won?
EADS was absolutely convinced that the USAF needs a bigger and "better" tanker and so they tried to sway the customers to create an RFP which favors a bigger tanker, which is essentially telling the customers to create a market for their tanker. Boeing on the other hand, and at least on the last round, just asked what the USAF needs, and whether that is a bigger or a smaller tanker, they will build one.
Sometimes, the market-push "strategy" works...but most of the time, it does not - think Sony digital player with their own proprietary digital audio format versus Apple's iPod taking advantage of the mp3 format. Sony wanted the world to convert to their "better" proprietary format, while Apple created a product which plays what was already a popular format, the mp3. Sony was almost single-handidly brought down by Apple.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree that EADS is unlikely to be able to put together a sufficiently advantageous bid in two months to win the contract without NG's help.
I am not so sure that EADS made a mistake in not contesting the GAO decision by funding additional studies. As I had mentioned above the USAF already operates a larger tanker for refueling, the KC-10 Extender. The USAF should therefore already have a pool of operational data showing the effects of being able to carry/deliver differing amounts of fuel in-flight. With that information, I would have expected the USAF to base any RFP characteristics upon US in-flight refueling needs. From what I can remember, the suggestion was that the USAF was looking for an aircraft comparable to the current KC-135R, not something appreciably smaller or larger.
If the above is true, then perhaps a MRTT version of the A300 would have been a better candidate than the A330.
The various aircraft dimensions are:
KC-10 ~L: 55m, W: 50m, H: 18m
KC-135 ~L: 41m, W: 40m, H: 12m
KC-767 ~L: 48m, W: 48m, H: 16m
A330 MRTT ~L: 60m, W: 60m, H: 18m
A300 ~L: 54m, W: 45m, H: 16m
As one can see, the KC-135 is the smallest of the current or potential jet-powered tanker aircraft, and the A330 is the largest, being nearly 50% longer, wider (wingspan) and higher. It is possible that the USAF just did not want such a large replacement aircraft.
If the KC-X programme was also to provide a replacement for the KC-10 Extender, then the A330 MRTT would have made more sense IMO.
-Cheers
First of all, get your terminology right- it's "technology push" vs. "market pull". If you decide to play buzzword bingo, do it right.
Secondly, your oversimplified view of the different strategies is also very flawed as first of all Boeing isn't building a special plane to the USAF's needs. It's the 767 which is an existing airliner at the very end of its commercial lifespan as opposed to the A330.
The 767 hasn't sold in the civilian sector for a long time and financially, Boeing has a vital interest to keep it alive as machines and development costs were depreciated long time ago and this is an opportunity to squeeze a bit more money and lifespan out of it.
That's a reason too why from an economical point of view Boeing isn't interested in a 777 or 787 tanker- they sell rather well in the civilian sector and there simply is no good enough reason to expand production and capacity (which is very expensive and the same reason why e.g. AMD didn't expand production of the Radeon 5850 and 5870 chipsets when everybody asked for them) if you already have an existing, depreciated production line that is able to deliever a good enough product. Moreso as to the military sector with its low flying hours compared to civilian use the economical deficiencies of the 767 (which- please remember that- is a generation before the 330) don't have the same effect.
And according to your argument, the USAF would have known exactly what they want
Believe me, EADS is a very good performer in terms of quality management, in which the main goal is to make the product match the customer's needs as much as possible- "technology push" therefore seldom is an option for EADS from a strategical POW.
A310 actually. On the market and proven technology, with experience available from US Allies too (German A310-304 MRTT and Canadian CC-150 Polaris). Pretty much the same size as the KC-767, and with the same problems (a generation older, less economic etc).
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I think the A-310 line terminated in 2007.
I disagree with the view that Boeing would rather the 767 than the 777 or 787. The latter would increase top line and may justify a higher bottom line as well.
As to 767 sales, its incorrect to state that there haven't been sales for a long time. ANA ordered 5x 767-300ERs in Nov 2009. The other 2 were by LAN. Total:7x 767-300ERs in 2009. Low but not none. There are approx 60 in the outstanding order list. Ironically, the last military delivery for the KC-767 was in Jan 2010 (to Japan).
As to obsolescence, genx would have addressed the engine issue. Understand EADs also considered it.
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...-boeing-considering-genx-for-kc-x-tanker.html
However, they still went with the PW as the baseline (probably on cost grounds and that GE was supplying the engines for the A-330).
http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/...NewGen+Tanker+to+be+Offered+to+U.S.+Air+Force
I think the A-310 line terminated in 2007.
I disagree with the view that Boeing would rather the 767 than the 777 or 787. The latter would increase top line and may justify a higher bottom line as well.
As to 767 sales, its incorrect to state that there haven't been sales for a long time. ANA ordered 5x 767-300ERs in Nov 2009. The other 2 were by LAN. Total:7x 767-300ERs in 2009. Low but not none. There are approx 60 in the outstanding order list. Ironically, the last military delivery for the KC-767 was in Jan 2010 (to Japan).
As to obsolescence, genx would have addressed the engine issue. Understand EADs also considered it.
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...-boeing-considering-genx-for-kc-x-tanker.html
However, they still went with the PW as the baseline (probably on cost grounds and that GE was supplying the engines for the A-330).
http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/...NewGen+Tanker+to+be+Offered+to+U.S.+Air+Force
Last edited:
This is not a matter of personal opinion I'm afraid. From an economical point of view the 767 just makes a lot more sense for Boeing.
One more word regarding the "Dreamtanker": Yes, it is sexy. However, it is economical overkill for military use. Plus: The 787 sells like cupcakes and as of yet Boeing has significant problems regarding supply chain management and inhouse ramp up with massive engineering capacity involved. And now develop a tanker variant?
That's what I was saying. It doesn't sell, and hasn't for years.
It's also about structural and aerodynamical issues.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am aware of the A310 MRTT in Canadian and German service. I did indeed mean the A300.
The A310 MRTT according to the figures I have can carry ~214 passengers, or 36 tons of cargo, or 28,000 kg/~62,000 lbs of fuel for tanking. In terms of fuel, that is ~half to a third of what the KC-135R can provide, depending on whose figures are used. I have seen different numbers of 120,000 lbs up to 200,000 lbs listed for the amount of fuel available for a tanking mission from a KC-135. Given the apparent difference in numbers between the A310 MRTT and the KC-135 I did not really consider it a viable alternative for the KC-X programme. Particularly since there is already a tanker aircraft in USMC service that has comparatively close performance in fuel carried, and that is the various iterations of the KC-130 wqhich can provide ~45,000 lbs/20,000 kg of fuel.
Looking through the airliners available from both Airbus and Boeing, the A300 and B767 both seem overall closest in performance to that of the KC-135. In terms of raw physical dimensions the A310 might be closer, the airliner itself was designed as a short-haul aircraft. Both the A300 and B767 are considered medium-haul airliners, and the B707 airliner which was the basis for the C-135 is considered a medium/long-haul airliner.
-Cheers
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
A-310 = A-300B10. Technically correct.
A-310 = A-300B10. Technically correct.
fretburner
Banned Member
Nice try. I did do it right.
Market Push - A “push” promotional strategy makes use of a company's sales force and trade promotion activities to create consumer demand for a product.
Over simplified? Yes. Flawed? No.Secondly, your oversimplified view of the different strategies is also very flawed as first of all Boeing isn't building a special plane to the USAF's needs. It's the 767 which is an existing airliner at the very end of its commercial lifespan as opposed to the A330.
The 767 hasn't sold in the civilian sector for a long time and financially, Boeing has a vital interest to keep it alive as machines and development costs were depreciated long time ago and this is an opportunity to squeeze a bit more money and lifespan out of it.
That's a reason too why from an economical point of view Boeing isn't interested in a 777 or 787 tanker- they sell rather well in the civilian sector and there simply is no good enough reason to expand production and capacity (which is very expensive and the same reason why e.g. AMD didn't expand production of the Radeon 5850 and 5870 chipsets when everybody asked for them) if you already have an existing, depreciated production line that is able to deliever a good enough product. Moreso as to the military sector with its low flying hours compared to civilian use the economical deficiencies of the 767 (which- please remember that- is a generation before the 330) don't have the same effect.
And according to your argument, the USAF would have known exactly what they want
To quote the article in the frontpage of this website:
"To suggest that we should conduct a competition that would result in the department paying a much higher price for capabilities that are not needed isn't effective competition," he said.
"We're going to define what the requirements are and we're going to buy to those requirements," he said. "We're not going to buy more capability than what we need either; we're not going to buy less capability than what we need."
You don't tell the USAF what they need. They will tell you and you provide.
You can only speculate that Boeing wasn't really interested in offering the 777, but they at least threw that in there, and say, hey if the USAF really need a bigger, more modern aircraft, then we'll make one based on the 777. Airbus had no other option but to shove the A330-based tanker down the USAF's throat.
I never doubted EADS in delivering a good aircraft (although they're kinda not too good with the A400), and maybe it's seldom an option for them to do this "technology push". But that rare occassion where they did so was this KC-X competition.
That is my opinion.
Look at the customers . . . both are 787 buyers needing to fill gaps caused by late delivery of their 787s. I wouldn't be surprised if there are buy back clauses in those contracts. I'm sure there's some element of compensation.
I think the last real 767 sale was about 2 years ago*. The line will almost certainly close when current orders are fulfilled, without the KC-X.
A bit O/T, but - a cousin of my partner is an ANA senior pilot, & has been getting very frustrated. He's supposed to be the first ANA 787 pilot.
Ah well, he should get his hands on one this year (at last!), if only for test flights alongside a Boeing pilot.*[Edit] I checked. Two were sold for 767 business/VIP use in December 2008. There are no airline customers since February 2007 which haven't had to fill gaps caused by 787 delays. There were no orders from March 2007 to July 2008. In 2007, LAN bought 3 in January, & in February UPS (27) & DHL (6) bought some cargo 767s.
I think this confirms that the 767 has no commercial future. It stopped selling three years ago.
Last edited:
In this case it's a "technology push" as you're referring to the fact that the product is (technologically) more than the customer wants which is a different kettle of fish. I quote you:
The other example you chose is another typical example of a "technology push". Ironically, the "market push" is what Boeing often tries to do.
Hm? This has nothing to do with your theory.fretburner said:
You see the contradiction to your previous posts yourself?fretburner said:
You're certainly free to express your opinion.fretburner said:
The 28 tons are the four added tanks in addition to the internal fuel tanks of the original aircraft (which are actually reduced compared to the original A310-300). A fifth add-on tank is possible with later A310-300 models btw, which have a slightly higher MTOW.
Total fuel capacity of the A310-304 MRTT as used by Germany and Canada is 89,890 l / 72,000 kg / 160,000 lbs of fuel.
Typical maximum performance data is:
- A310 MRTT : delivery of 30 tons fuel at max mission range 4,600 km
- KC-135R : delivery of 32 tons fuel at max mission range 3,700 km
This 30/32 tons load is a typical refuelling mission at long range for NATO. Reason for the longer range is that the A310 is more fuel-efficient itself.
fretburner
Banned Member
Let me ask you this, "technology push" is not "market push"?
When did Boeing make a "market push" in the KC-X competition?
I've had my "theory" long before that article was published. I just quoted that to reinforce it.Hm? This has nothing to do with your theory.
Nope. You just misunderstood my previous post. When I said "EADS was absolutely convinced..." it doesn't mean they were right on the money of the USAF requirements. They thought they got the requirements right, where in fact they did not.
Yes, I sure am. Carry on.
The real reason Boeing is now the only bidder...
The new chairman of the defense appropriations subcommitte that Murtha used to chair has ties to Boeing... Kind of odd that we have this competition going for years, then all of a sudden it's not a competition anymore when the chairman has ties to one of the companies... I don't believe in coincedences...
The Boeing may be the better pick in the end, but it's just a little odd for me... All these websites talk about Rep. Norm Dicks from Washington state and how Boeing has been his biggest campaign contributor and other information of the same type... He also has at least 4 other defense contractors in his district...
in.news.yahoo.com/137/20100210/371/tbs-boeing-seen-aided-by-ties-to-key-u-s.html
FBI Investigates Rep. Norm Dicks' Top Contributor « PubliCola
Norm Dicks could be boon for Boeing - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com
DoD Buzz | Dicks ‘Sure Thing’ For HAC-D
DoD Buzz | Split Buy Language Not Likely: Rep. Dicks
Congressmen on these types of committees should have absolutely no ties to contractors and no contractors in their districts... That's the only way to be fair (but who said the government's fair, anyway?)
The new chairman of the defense appropriations subcommitte that Murtha used to chair has ties to Boeing... Kind of odd that we have this competition going for years, then all of a sudden it's not a competition anymore when the chairman has ties to one of the companies... I don't believe in coincedences...
The Boeing may be the better pick in the end, but it's just a little odd for me... All these websites talk about Rep. Norm Dicks from Washington state and how Boeing has been his biggest campaign contributor and other information of the same type... He also has at least 4 other defense contractors in his district...
in.news.yahoo.com/137/20100210/371/tbs-boeing-seen-aided-by-ties-to-key-u-s.html
FBI Investigates Rep. Norm Dicks' Top Contributor « PubliCola
Norm Dicks could be boon for Boeing - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com
DoD Buzz | Dicks ‘Sure Thing’ For HAC-D
DoD Buzz | Split Buy Language Not Likely: Rep. Dicks
Congressmen on these types of committees should have absolutely no ties to contractors and no contractors in their districts... That's the only way to be fair (but who said the government's fair, anyway?)
I think that Falstaff has it mostly right. This has been for a long time a politically highly charged tender with a great deal of dealings going on in front and behind the scenes. As Weasel wrote, perhaps the key move was the way in which the new requirements were set up and tailored. EADS could have perhaps made more efforts to shape this cornerstone, but it is also possible that the "new" ones were set in stone and that the prior efforts to change them were all futile...
Firn
Firn