Posted on 02/24/2010 3:07:35 PM PST by Yo-Yo
If we buy AIRBUS (EADS is AIRBUS ) and ship the bulk of our military aerospace manufacturing offshore, we deserve to be the lackeys of France and China.
When the KC-X was first bid, the contract for 179 tankers was estimated to be worth $40 billion.
After NG-EADS won the first KC-X go around, they bid $35 billion, less that what Boeing bid.
Now that the RFP is out, and the changes that NG-EADS wanted were not made, they probably won’t bid, leaving it to Boeing.
Look for the KC-X to once again be a $40 billion contract.
- speed of aircraft is neglected
- faked mission profiles are used for fuel calculations (for aircraft wear different mission profiles are used)
- use as an airlifter is not properly considered (1 % of all missions)
-Air Force neglects the fleet effectiveness value for fuel costs
Calculation of the Military Construction (MILCON) costs is also doubtful because the fleet effectiveness value is also not considered.
NG should protest against such a consciously distorted program at GAO and withhold an offer.
The thing that really bothered me in this SRD and in the previous bid that NG-EADS won, is that in calculating takeoff performance, they specify max gross takeoff weight, instead of “takeoff with at least 200,000 lbs of fuel.”
The A330-200 could operate out of 6,000 ft fields at the same fuel load as a maxed out KC-767, which needed 10,000 ft.
What’s wrong with paying a premium to have the aircraft made in the US (I know EADS is setting a production line somewhere in the south) by a US company?
They are doing final assembly of the fueling system.
The airframes will fly over from europe.
Only the first 4. The rest have been produced in Mobile right in the same way as the 787 in Everett.
The wings are made in Germany, the fuselage barrels in France,Spain,and Italy, The engines in France.... The list goes on
Same thing for fuel reserve after landing in percent of fuel load at takeoff instead of fuel for e.g. 2 hours.
Still to be found within the latest RFP.
By that well known French firm General Electric
Stop making stuff up.
CFM, CFM56 and the CFM logo are all trademarks of CFM International, a 50/50 Joint company of Snecma (SAFRAN Group) and General Electric.
NG-EADS bid the General Electric CF6-80 for their KC-45, not the CFM-56 that the KC-135R currently uses. Boeing bid the PW-4062 last time around.
And many parts of the 767 are made outside of the US.
the bids were not $5B apart.
The AF abitrarily added cost to Boeing’s bid for risk. The GAO found a math error in the AF numbers and the Boeing bid was actually the lower bid.
this is even after the AF neglected real world issues like ramp space.
A330 wings are built in the UK.
I think the major assembly work was going to be done in Alabama. Apparently the Air Force was told to keep changing the contract until Boeing got the job.
Whose only product is the CFM-56, an engine in the 18-34,000lb range. And yes GE builds them to power the Boeing KC-135R and Boeing P-8
However the NorthropGrumman/EADS KC330/KC-45 needs engines of 72000lb thrust. They are General Electric CF6-80s
The core technology is the design and how to make the pieces, not how to follow assembly instructions.
The competition by NG-EADS brought the costs down to $35 billion.
The tanker Boeing bid was based on a civil Boeing 767-200LRF, which has never been built, which violated the spirit of the requirement that the tanker aircraft be based on COTS airframes.
The NG-EADS tanker was the same airframe as is being delivered to the RAAF.
And for this bid, the requirement is for a boom that can deliver 1,200 GPM. The A330 MRTT boom can deliver 1,200 GPM. The Boom that Boeing built for the Italian and Japanese KC-767s can only deliver 900 GPM.
If Boeing wins this contract, they will have to develop a 1,200 GPM boom, causing extra uncertanity in their ability to deliver on time.
The core technology is in the engines (US built,) the refueling boom (US built,) the wing and centerline refueling hose and drouges (US built,) and the military-specific avionics (US built.)
The fact that Boeing can rebuild wings for the Fairchild Republic A-10 tells me that the sheet aluminum ain't all that complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.