Posted on 03/22/2008 2:38:39 PM PDT by MHalblaub
Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document. If you have any questions, please contact Sandra Palmatier, Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator, Phone 937-656-9599, Fax 937-255-6350, Email KC-X.IndustryRequests@wpafb.af.mil. If you need document viewers, please try the following Document Viewer List.
(Excerpt) Read more at fbo.gov ...
over "KC-X Draft RFP 02 01(Posted on Dec 15, 2006)"
up to "Amendment 03(Posted on Mar 21, 2007)"
If anybody out there has time to read and likes to find some last minute changes, here is the stuff.
Ping
This will be interesting to observe.
Actually that is not entirely accurate. Because the V-22 is a slow flyer, the new KCX cannot slow down enough after it initially takes off and is at groos maximum weight. After it has burned some of its fuel and other aircraft have been refueled, it can then slow down enough to refuel the V-22.
>>According to sources at Walt Disney, Spider Man can’t climb and Super Man can’t fly.<<
Take-Off and landing speed of an A330 is about 10 mph slower than a B767.
Guess why?
The max speed of V-22 is twice the landing speed of KC-45.
Question:
Is there one confirmed refueling of a V-22 with a KC-767?
Last remark:
The KC-767 can’t refuel my car.
This plane is a threat to my security!
Defense Industry Daily has asked Boeing a number of questions on this press release, including:
… which aircraft were left out, and what factors would allow the KC-767 to refuel them where the A330 MRTT could not. We have also requested elaboration on what would make the KC-767 more survivable, given that both aircraft would be equipped with the same defensive systems. http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/18/can-the-proposed-tanker-refuel-the-v-22/
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), rejecting a claim by losing bidder Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), said on Monday its aerial tanker based on the Airbus A330 could refuel the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft flown by the Marine Corps.
Boeing on March 11 filed a protest against the Air Force's decision to award Northrop and its European partner, EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), the parent of Airbus, a $35 billion program for new aerial refueling tankers that will be known as the KC-45.
In the protest, Boeing said the Northrop tanker had "significant shortcomings" including the inability to refuel aircraft like the V-22 Osprey. The Osprey takes off and lands like a helicopter, but flies like an airplane.
Northrop director of business development Marc Lindsley said that claim was false.
"The Northrop KC-45 can refuel the V-22," he told Reuters.
The ability to refuel the V-22 was not a mandatory requirement in the bidding competition, according to industry sources.
Both the Northrop KC-30 tanker and Boeing's 767 tanker include a center refueling boom, hose and drogue refueling equipment on the wingpods, and a center-line hose and drogue.
A drogue is a system that allows the tanker to pass fuel into the receiving aircraft using a retractable hose. It differs from the boom system, which has a long pipe that hangs under the plane and mates up with the receiving aircraft.
But neither company has flight tested the center line hose and drogue that would be used to refuel the V-22s, which the Marine Corps is now using in Iraq, according to industry sources.
Currently, the Marines refuel V-22s using Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) C-130 planes. The Marine Corps' V-22 program office had no immediate comment on the refueling issue.
Northrop's system, which includes a 90-foot hose, is made by Sargent Fletcher, the U.S. division of Britain's Cobham Plc (COB.L: Quote, Profile, Research), which makes refueling hoses used aboard the C-130.
In a document explaining her decision to award the program to Northrop and a separate set of briefing charts, Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton said Boeing's aircraft was better suited for refueling tilt-rotor aircraft. The Boeing 767 could also carry separate types of fuels and was better able to refuel aircraft such as the C-130 at the 767's maximum gross weight, Payton said.
She said Northrop's aircraft had two weaknesses associated with its refueling boom -- limited lighting for night operations and weak boom nozzles -- but Payton said both could be resolved during the development phase.
Boeing's tanker had some advantages, but Payton concluded "they are not significant when compared to the significant refueling advantages that the KC-30 provides," according to a confidential Air Force document, which was viewed by Reuters.
Overall, Air Force evaluators assigned more risk to Boeing's bid because it has not yet built the 767-200 Long Range Freighter model it proposed for the tanker, which includes parts from other 767 models, or its refueling boom.
They concluded Northrop's bid posed a lower risk during the development phase, in part because it would provide for four commercial planes to be modified into tankers earlier.
The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional agency that oversees contract disputes, is reviewing Boeing's protest. It is likely to call a number of hearings on the issue before it rules on the case by June 19.
In its protest, Boeing also criticized the Air Force's handling of the Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment, a complex tool used to analyze the tankers' performance in specific wartime scenarios.
To perform the assessment, it said the Air Force relied on the Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System model, which was developed by Northrop. It said the Air Force also made changes to the integrated fleet refueling assessment that favored the larger tanker.
Lindsley acknowledged that a Northrop unit did develop the Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System model, but said the Air Force had been using it even before the tanker competition. Northrop's tanker team never communicated with the Northrop team that created the model, he said.
"We never talked with them. I don't even know where their headquarters is," Lindsley said.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Richard Chang)
© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
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.