Posted: 3/8/2010 1:55:13 PM EDT
| Just announced on CNN (3:50 p.m., 3/8/2010) that Northrup Grumman will "no-bid" the KCX tanker contract because (paraphrased) "the RFQ gave no credit for offering a larger airplane with greater off-load capability." This will last until my Senator (McCain) insists that the RFQ be rewritten to wire the award for NG. |
|
Well... I remind you that EADS/NG did win the competition... the rules are so changed now that things are as they are..
it's not technical at all.. it's political.. with no competition, you'll get the 2 first lots of tankers at a fair price, and then boeing will make the US tax payer spit for the nexts.. and the biggest looser here, is not really EADS or NG, but the US Air Force.. which could have gotten a much better tanker for the money.. |
|
Quoted:
Well... I remind you that EADS/NG did win the competition... the rules are so changed now that things are as they are.. it's not technical at all.. it's political.. with no competition, you'll get the 2 first lots of tankers at a fair price, and then boeing will make the US tax payer spit for the nexts.. and the biggest looser here, is not really EADS or NG, but the US Air Force.. which could have gotten a much better tanker for the money.. Assuming, of course, that the 330 was superior to the 767, which is highly questionable, in my book. One thing that the EADS fanboys refused to answer was that if the 330 was a superior cargo aircraft, which cargo airlines were operating them, versus 767s? Additionally, the corrosion issues that USAirways had with its 330s (very serious ones, though to EADS credit, they were very aggressive in addressing them) make the 330 a questionable buy for the the USAF. Also, the EADS tender, as its written, basically was a replacement for the KC-10, not the -135. Mostly, to my way of thinking, the buy with the most aircraft should win, versus individual capability. The USAF has a real problem with its shrinking fleet size. No matter how good a F-22, A330, or C-17 might individually be, the simple fact is that it can only be one place at a time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I remind you that EADS/NG did win the competition... the rules are so changed now that things are as they are.. it's not technical at all.. it's political.. with no competition, you'll get the 2 first lots of tankers at a fair price, and then boeing will make the US tax payer spit for the nexts.. and the biggest looser here, is not really EADS or NG, but the US Air Force.. which could have gotten a much better tanker for the money.. Assuming, of course, that the 330 was superior to the 767, which is highly questionable, in my book. One thing that the EADS fanboys refused to answer was that if the 330 was a superior cargo aircraft, which cargo airlines were operating them, versus 767s? Additionally, the corrosion issues that USAirways had with its 330s (very serious ones, though to EADS credit, they were very aggressive in addressing them) make the 330 a questionable buy for the the USAF. Also, the EADS tender, as its written, basically was a replacement for the KC-10, not the -135. Mostly, to my way of thinking, the buy with the most aircraft should win, versus individual capability. The USAF has a real problem with its shrinking fleet size. No matter how good a F-22, A330, or C-17 might individually be, the simple fact is that it can only be one place at a time. You can find one form or another of corrosion on every aircraft in the sky. The A330 carry's more cargo in even more universal cargo LD's than the 767's which has a total oddball cross section. Questioning the A330's superiority is denial. The 330 is a much newer design and is better/more efficient, go figure. |
|
Quoted:
You can find one form or another of corrosion on every aircraft in the sky. The A330 carry's more cargo in even more universal cargo LD's than the 767's which has a total oddball cross section. Questioning the A330's superiority is denial. The 330 is a much newer design and is better/more efficient, go figure. Your analysis is questionable, at best. What is "efficient" or a "newer design?" In the case of the tanker, are we buying a right-sized tanker, or a cargo aircraft? The 767 IS the right sized tanker, and the 330 is an decent tanker. The 330 isn't a -135 replacement. And the number of 330s in commercial cargo service is.... Corrosion and delamination are very serious issues with the 300s and 330s. I've been part of fleet purchase studies at two major airlines (though a staffer, not a principal) who found the dispatch reliabilty and major maintanance numbers of the 767 to be superior to the 330. In the case of one operator, that comparison data was between early (I believe single digit serial number) 767-201ERs and new 330s. That was telling, in my mind. Additionally, our engineers were scared of the delam issue, and of the FCS design, which they said had some serious flaws (such as "redundant" systems, where control boxes were put literally next to one another. Such a system was redundant for fault, but not for damage or other outside insult.) |
|
Do you really think that the advantage of having a slightly smaller tanker (as the 135 was) equals or beats a tanker that carry more fuel (or else), farther, for a longer flight time, and with a design that makes it easier and quicker to operate ?
Let's be honest.. i perfectly understand that you want (and the conservatives) a US airplane in the US Air Force... I even share this idea.. but don't fool us with any other reasons... technincally and financially, it seems that the EADS/GN project was a better choice.. |
|
Quoted:
just goes to show what happens when politicians get their fingers into the mix... the military would be much better off if they just gave them the money they needed and left them alone Can't agree more.. and it's true with MANY other things.. (just like McNamara and the early m16's in VN... just to stay on topic in arfcom..)- Only this time we have a "patriotic" component in the problem, since one of the opponent was from other countries.. I really thought that the ANG Eurocopter and the Marine One contracts would have flattened the field... |
|
Quoted:
Do you really think that the advantage of having a slightly smaller tanker (as the 135 was) equals or beats a tanker that carry more fuel (or else), farther, for a longer flight time, and with a design that makes it easier and quicker to operate ? Let's be honest.. i perfectly understand that you want (and the conservatives) a US airplane in the US Air Force... I even share this idea.. but don't fool us with any other reasons... technincally and financially, it seems to that the EADS/GN project was a better choice.. There is a reason that airlines, for example, have a fleet mix, when they have one mission (moving people.) There is considerable merit to having the right sized aircraft for your mission. I know tanker/mobility guys, none of whom thought the 330 was a superior airplane. I know airline people, with decades of experience in maintaining and operating aircraft for international airlines, who say the the same. Personally, I have considerable heartburn with the military procurement process...too much of it is wrapped up in the same level of analysis as is seen on this board. However, when you go beyond the news release/sale brochure level of information, things get much more complex than "A is bigger than B," or "A is newer than B." For my money, the tender should have gone something like, "Here's X billion dollars...whats the maximum number of airframes you can give me me, to include spares, parts, and maintenance." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
just goes to show what happens when politicians get their fingers into the mix... the military would be much better off if they just gave them the money they needed and left them alone Can't agree more.. and it's true with MANY other things.. (just like McNamara and the early m16's in VN... just to stay on topic in arfcom..)- Only this time we have a "patriotic" component in the problem, since one of the opponent was from other countries.. I really thought that the ANG Eurocopter and the Marine One contracts would have flattened the field... Maintenance of the industrial base IS a very practical and importance reason to source defense projects internally.You can dismiss this as patriotism, but there are quite legitimate concerns at play here. That said, we buy plenty from our foreign partners. In the two cases you stated, the National Guard Eurocopter was a mistake from an Army Doctrinal Standpoint, and the Marine One was mistake from a military standpoint (in that the White House was levying tons of requirements, many of them orders of magnitude more complex than the originally contracted. |
|
There is a reason that airlines, for example, have a fleet mix, when they have one mission (moving people.) There is considerable merit to having the right sized aircraft for your mission.
Well, i am not sure that with the same payload as the 767, the 330 would have costed more to operate than the 767... we should look into that closely. As for logistics, I am not sure that USAF airbases around the world are THAT crowded considering the number of aicrafts nowadays compared to what we were used to see around the cold war. I know tanker/mobility guys, none of whom thought the 330 was a superior airplane. I know airline people, with decades of experience in maintaining and operating aircraft for international airlines, who say the the same.
I happend to be in the same situation, but hearing other things..  looks like everyone is biased then..
I agree with you on the last part... the $$$ is a huge factor, and I even understand the patriotic component in it.. I find it normal and acceptable.. But please, be honest (im not saying this for you specifically) , don't make it a technical issue, because it sounds kinda ridiculous.. |
|
Quoted:
There is a reason that airlines, for example, have a fleet mix, when they have one mission (moving people.) There is considerable merit to having the right sized aircraft for your mission.
Well, i am not sure that with the same payload as the 767, the 330 would have costed more to operate than the 767... we should look into that closely. As for logistics, I am not sure that USAF airbases around the world are THAT crowded considering the number of aicrafts nowadays compared to what we were used to see around the cold war. I know tanker/mobility guys, none of whom thought the 330 was a superior airplane. I know airline people, with decades of experience in maintaining and operating aircraft for international airlines, who say the the same.
I happend to be in the same situation, but hearing other things.. looks like everyone is biased then..
I agree with you on the last part... the $$$ is a huge factor, and I even understand the patriotic component in it.. I find it normal and acceptable.. But please, be honest (im not saying this for you specifically) , don't make it a technical issue, because it sounds kinda ridiculous.. If I remember the fuel savings document correctly every 1000 pounds of weght costs you about 1 pound of fuel per hour. A larger aircraft by its very nature will have a higher empty weight than smaller one, thus leading to extra fuel expenses on an ongoing basis. And just to give you some insight into how much the Air Force cares about weight savings we now have to remove extra oxygen kits off the jet when they are flying local missions, even though each one weighs less than a pound. |
|
Quoted:
There is a reason that airlines, for example, have a fleet mix, when they have one mission (moving people.) There is considerable merit to having the right sized aircraft for your mission.
Well, i am not sure that with the same payload as the 767, the 330 would have costed more to operate than the 767... we should look into that closely. As for logistics, I am not sure that USAF airbases around the world are THAT crowded considering the number of aicrafts nowadays compared to what we were used to see around the cold war. I know tanker/mobility guys, none of whom thought the 330 was a superior airplane. I know airline people, with decades of experience in maintaining and operating aircraft for international airlines, who say the the same.
I happend to be in the same situation, but hearing other things.. looks like everyone is biased then..
I agree with you on the last part... the $$$ is a huge factor, and I even understand the patriotic component in it.. I find it normal and acceptable.. But please, be honest (im not saying this for you specifically) , don't make it a technical issue, because it sounds kinda ridiculous.. If I remember the fuel savings document correctly every 1000 pounds of weght costs you about 1 pound of fuel per hour. A larger aircraft by its very nature will have a higher empty weight than smaller one, thus leading to extra fuel expenses on an ongoing basis. And just to give you some insight into how much the Air Force cares about weight savings we now have to remove extra oxygen kits off the jet when they are flying local missions, even though each one weighs less than a pound. |
|
If I remember the fuel savings document correctly every 1000 pounds of weght costs you about 1 pound of fuel per hour. A larger aircraft by its very nature will have a higher empty weight than smaller one, thus leading to extra fuel expenses on an ongoing basis.
do you think this take account of the global aerodynamic of the airframe and the consumption of the engines..? it's not all about weight, right ? but again, I have not the datas of both airplanes on hand, so I cannot tell exactly. |
|
Quoted:
Why all of this comparison of the A330 to the 767? Isn't the 777 a closer competitor in size and capabilities to the A330? Mike F I think that's the whole point of the discussion. Based on their interpretation of the RFQ, Boeing obviously felt that the smaller 767-based offering was a better match for the 300-odd specific requirements in the RFQ than the much larger 777. Boeing has kept the assembly line open on the 767 in anticipation of the tanker competition while EADS/Airbus (or whatever they're calling themselves) allowed the A310 line to close. The A310 was much closer in size to the 767 than the A330. The only airframe Airbus could offer was the A330, the A320 being much too small. |
|
Quoted:
Well... I remind you that EADS/NG did win the competition... the rules are so changed now that things are as they are.. Well NG/EADS got the Air Force to change the RFP to favor them by threating to drop out of the first bid because the 330 was too big. it's not technical at all.. it's political.. What Mil procurement isn't ? with no competition, you'll get the 2 first lots of tankers at a fair price, and then boeing will make the US tax payer spit for the nexts.. Boeing would have a hard time milking it for more $ when they already spelled out the cost in the failed RFP bid. and the biggest looser here, is not really EADS or NG, but the US Air Force.. which could have gotten a much better tanker for the money.. The US worker and the AF was the winner and got the better tanker, Airbus and a few political Generals in the Pentagon that hijacked the KC-X bid process to make a grab for an overpriced un-needed cargo plane are the losers.. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I remind you that EADS/NG did win the competition... the rules are so changed now that things are as they are.. Well NG/EADS got the Air Force to change the RFP to favor them by threating to drop out of the first bid because the 330 was too big. it's not technical at all.. it's political.. What Mil procurement isn't ? with no competition, you'll get the 2 first lots of tankers at a fair price, and then boeing will make the US tax payer spit for the nexts.. Boeing would have a hard time milking it for more $ when they already spelled out the cost in the failed RFP bid. and the biggest looser here, is not really EADS or NG, but the US Air Force.. which could have gotten a much better tanker for the money.. The US worker and the AF was the winner and got the better tanker, Airbus and a few political Generals in the Pentagon that hijacked the KC-X bid process to make a grab for an overpriced un-needed cargo plane are the losers.. You must work for Hoeing. |
|
Quoted:
For my money, the tender should have gone something like, "Here's X billion dollars...whats the maximum number of airframes you can give me me, to include spares, parts, and maintenance." I would think that they ought to figure out how much fuel they need delivered at how many different locations, factor in the OR rate and every other modifier and then decide how many airframes were needed to support a given level of activity... Make sense? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For my money, the tender should have gone something like, "Here's X billion dollars...whats the maximum number of airframes you can give me me, to include spares, parts, and maintenance." I would think that they ought to figure out how much fuel they need delivered at how many different locations, factor in the OR rate and every other modifier and then decide how many airframes were needed to support a given level of activity... Make sense? Yeah, but that criterion (for example, the ability of 767 to stage closer than a A330 and a smaller ramp weight footprint) would generally favor the Boeing, so we needed to go with the "bigger must equal better" criterion. Also, the USAF does futures OR in a really interesting, if not to say damn near obtuse, fashion. Thus, I can Congress getting the feeling that they were getting baffled with bullshit. Honestly, I think that taking a third of the money and buying the best of the dozens of DC-10s sitting in the desert and converting them, is the best solution for the US taxpayer. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for the insight. Still, I think that using anything other than a projected requirement to determine purchases is part of the problem... I think the way DoD and the service components determine those requirements (the Operations Research or OR) part of the problem is the real sticky wicket. Look at FCS. When our operational experience was Bosnia/Kosovo, the OR pushed our procurement in that direction (toward a very light, fight-from-the-ramp force.) In the case of the USAF, the corporate decision was made long ago that it could forego mass for individual unit capability, and could essentially not have to worry about the maintanance of a national competitive industrial base. |
|
Quoted:
I thought that Boeing bid with the 767s because that is the size the USAF asked for. Once the USAF changed its mind and went with the 330 size boeing offered to rebid with the 777, but biding was closed. Then there was the whole big dust up. All of that is basically correct, but needs to be prefaced with Boeing's prior procurement shenanigans, WRT tankers and relationships between Boeing execs and Government execs... |
|
Quoted:
Honestly, I think that taking a third of the money and buying the best of the dozens of DC-10s sitting in the desert and converting them, is the best solution for the US taxpayer. We don't need anymore KC-10's, it would be cheaper to keep throwing $ at the KC-135R maintenance costs than converting DC-10's into expensive to operate & fix KC-10's. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought that Boeing bid with the 767s because that is the size the USAF asked for. Once the USAF changed its mind and went with the 330 size boeing offered to rebid with the 777, but biding was closed. Then there was the whole big dust up. All of that is basically correct, but needs to be prefaced with Boeing's prior procurement shenanigans, WRT tankers and relationships between Boeing execs and Government execs... All of which Boeing has paid penalties for including Mike Sears- a Boeing top executive- going to jail and losing the ability to bid on contracts for several years. EADS-Airbus enjoys a relationship with their respective governments that Boeing doesn't in the form of subsidies to assist in manufacturing and R&D, but people seem to forget that. And before anyone asks, YES, I do work for Boeing- 21 years at the Kennedy Space Center and for the past 2 years in Alaska. |
|
Quoted:
I thought that Boeing bid with the 767s because that is the size the USAF asked for. Once the USAF changed its mind and went with the 330 size boeing offered to rebid with the 777, but biding was closed. Then there was the whole big dust up. To an extent yes. The EADS won RFP said esentially "must offload X fuel, no credit will be given for additional." The AF then said they went with EADS because it carries more fuel. Perhaps Boeing should propose everything from a 747 to an MD80 just to make sure they cover where a finicy procurement team is on selection day. 
|
|
Quoted:
Why aren't they using the 747? Boeing did propose the 747 in the mid-'70s against McDonD's DC-10-30. Also proposed early in the competition were the L1011, and the C-5. The DC-10 obviously won, and I think has served pretty well as the KC-10. There are even a few KDC-10s flying for foreign countries which are tanker conversions from civy DC-10s. The RAF uses L1011s coverted to tankers. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Why aren't they using the 747? Boeing did propose the 747 in the mid-'70s against McDonD's DC-10-30. Also proposed early in the competition were the L1011, and the C-5. The DC-10 obviously won, and I think has served pretty well as the KC-10. There are even a few KDC-10s flying for foreign countries which are tanker conversions from civy DC-10s. The RAF uses L1011s coverted to tankers. IIRC, the Dutch KDC-10s were purpose built, not conversions. They got them around the same time as we got ours. And BigSexy = PURE FUCKING WIN in the Air Refueling department. I liked the KC-330's operating station more than the KC-767's. |
|
My source (wiki) says that the KDC-10s were DC-10-30CFs acuired used from Martinair and converted in the early '90s. Not that wiki is the final word, but sounds like they came to be 8 years at least after the last KC-10. There's also a couple of DC-10-40 civilian tanker conversions (with "N" tail numbers) that do contract refueling for who knows?
Photos available elsewhere show the Dutch KDC-10s and other conversions as having a full compliment of passenger windows and doors whereas the USAF KCs have no pax windows. |
|
While Boeing didn't do themselves any favors I think the biggest reason Aibus got the contract was so Bush could curry favor with Europe over Iraq.
EPIC FAIL. Anyway, Who wants a Frog designed, Limey built airplane when Boeing has an excellent track record with building tankers? |