Too Big, Too Heavy

Human Events ^ | 3/24 | Jed Babbin

[MHalblaub]

“Here is the link:”

Here are two links:

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

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

[djwright]

Thanks.

From page 16 you see the official scoring:

The scores are almost identical. So where did the “4 out of 5” and “it wasn’t close” come from?

If I were SECDEF Gates I would want an answer to that question. who leaked those talking points to Loren Thompson? Were laws broken?

[MHalblaub]

The scores are almost identical. So where did the “4 out of 5” and “it wasn’t close” come from?

What is compared on page 16 are
“Mission Capability/Proposal Risk”
“Past Performance”
“Cost/Price (MPLCC)”
“IFARA Fleet Effectiveness Value”

The first two are nearly identical like the third.
GOA recalculated:
$108.041 billion for Boeing's
$108.133 billion for Northrop Grumman’s offer
Less than 0.1 %.

But next factor was
“IFARA Fleet Effectiveness Value”

1.79 for KC-767AT
1.90 for KC-45

One KC-45 would replace 1.90 KC-135 and one KC-767AT just 1.79 Stratotankers.
Looks not much but with 263 KC-45 you can replace the whole fleet of 500 KC-135. You'll need 279 KC-767AT to do the same.

According to this calculations after the first batch of 179 KC-45 you just need 84 more aircrafts of the same type to replace the complete KC-135 fleet.

According to the IFARA Factor Evaluation GOA says:

Our review of the record discloses that the SSAC and SSA did consider the agency’s evaluated insights and observations in their evaluation of the firms’ proposals under this factor, and therefore find no basis to object to the agency’s evaluation.

Both aircrafts are nearly identical in terms of production risk or costs (0.1 %). But one aircraft is about 6 % more efficient in its main task aerial refueling.

Or with the words of Gen. Lichte:

I can sum it up in one word: more.

More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability.

[djwright]

Oh good the spider chart again. Someone made a good point, show the chart with the round circle being the requirement not the KC30.

Since the GAO ruled that extra credit should not have been given for exceeding the requirement this chart is misleading.

The IFARA number also required a lot of tweaking. Rules had to be changed to make it so the KC30 could even complete some of the missions.

But the most damning part of the GAO report is that there is a strong case that NG/EADS did not even meet all of the threshold requirements and therefore was not even eligible for the award.

I will agree that the KC30 can carry more cargo. But why didn't they agree to meet the depot requirement. Also why didn't they do the homework to show that they could refuel all the fixed wing aircraft.

So other than reposting the NG PR what do you have?

[cmdr straker]

A P.O.S. that cannot perform emergency break away proccedures. has a boom envelope problem, let alone a non working boom. and it takes up more parking spaces. but hey it hauls more. Not, thats what a C-17 does better.

but leave it to the backseat driver posting his EADS PR to whine some more. The GAO found that eads lied and someone took a bribe. Boeing should be awarded the contract now so we can get these birds flying

[MHalblaub]

Since the GAO ruled that extra credit should not have been given for exceeding the requirement this chart is misleading.

Several lines on the spider's net point to something else - effectiveness or efficiency.

Did you ever thought about why no extra credit was given?
You would buy a car that's 0.1 % cheaper but offers less space just because it fulfills your minimum requirements - 4 wheels, 5 seats, engine and a steering wheel?

The IFARA number also required a lot of tweaking. Rules had to be changed to make it so the KC30 could even complete some of the missions.

GAO denied exactly that claim by Boeing.

But the most damning part of the GAO report is that there is a strong case that NG/EADS did not even meet all of the threshold requirements and therefore was not even eligible for the award.

Did you know that Boeing also failed in field of unrefueled range.

I think the depot issue is more about aircrafts like A310 or 767 at the end of production. Last year 68 A330 were delivered and 198 more were ordered. Why NG didn't issue something to comply with this requirement is NG’s fault.

So other than reposting the NG PR what do you have?

The GAO decision which sustains NG PR.

[djwright]

Did you ever thought about why no extra credit was given?

It doesn't really matter why. The RFP said no extra credit. The AF gave extra credit. That is why this is getting tossed.

Did you know that the 767 range would be further if they hadn't included more survivability features?

Did you read in the GAO report that although the 330 can carry more pallets it can't carry significantly more cargo on the main deck. This also shows the weakness in the RFP. They should have specified a cargo density. They have a standard pallet. I am sure there is also a standard weight for those pallets (for planning purposes). In the freight biz that is critical information.

Either the AF doesn't know how to write an RFP or it doesn’t know how to evaluate one. Either way they are about to get a whole lot more help in doing so.

[MHalblaub]

It doesn't really matter why. The RFP said no extra credit. The AF gave extra credit. That is why this is getting tossed.

Next RFP: “Air Force will give extra credit for exceeding ...”

Did you know that the 767 range would be further if they hadn't included more survivability features?

Then Boeing shouldn't have used concrete as protecting material.

Did you read in the GAO report that although the 330 can carry more pallets it can't carry significantly more cargo on the main deck.

The SSAC noted that the KC-30 could carry more 463L pallets⁽²⁵⁾ than Boeing,⁽²⁶⁾ and that Northrop Grumman offered the capability to carry 463L pallets on both the main cargo deck and a lower cargo compartment, while Boeing only offered the single cargo deck.

[...]

(26) The SSAC noted, however, that the KC-30’s total weight carriage capability on the main cargo deck was not substantially greater than that of the KC-767. AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 17.

They should have specified a cargo density. They have a standard pallet. I am sure there is also a standard weight for those pallets (for planning purposes).

463L master pallet
Each pallet is 88 inches (224 cm) wide, 108 inches (274 cm) long, and 2-1/4 inches (5.7 cm) high. The usable space is 84” (213 cm) by 104” (264 cm). It can hold up to 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) of cargo at 8 g. Empty, each pallet weighs 290 lb (130 kg), or 355 lb (160 kg) with two side nets and a top net. (Source Wikipedia)

So with about 12 463L pallets at max weight a KC-45 is full (52 t). You can load 8 in the lower cargo compartment and scatter the other 4 the main deck. That's just a guess.

Weight of a CFM56 engine is about 2.5 t, F110 2.0 t and PW4000-94 4.3 t. I doubt one of the KCs can handle one of these engines on the main deck.

KC-767AT can carry more than 40,000 lbs fuel in the lower cargo compartment. Maximum gross weight for one LD-2 container is 2,700 lb and 767-200 can carry 22 LD-2 (59,400 lb). A330-200 can carry 26 LD-3 with a maximum gross weight of 3,500 lb for each LD-3. Both container systems have nearly the same pressure of 0.96 lb/in^2 on cargo floor. Max. pressure of a 463L is about 1.05 lb/in^2. With the same pressure as a civil container a 463L pallet could weight up to 9,100 lb on civil aircrafts. That's fare more than weight of CFM56.

I want close with the words of Mr. Kepplinger:

Boeing also challenges the Air Force’s evaluation judgment in the airlift area that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft offered superior cargo, passenger, and aeromedical evacuation capability than did Boeing’s aircraft. From our review of the record, including the hearing testimony, we see no basis to conclude that the Air Force’s evaluation that Northrop Grumman’s aircraft was more advantageous in the airlift area is unreasonable.

[djwright]

Or just ignore survivability altogether (like NG did) and somehow get the AF to not count it against you.

Did you see the previous (may 2007) GAO report that said the AF did not adequately justify the need for cargo?

And now that the KC30 is the more expensive option there is analysis required to justify the additional expense.

Oh and while they are at it maybe they should run the numbers on the MIL CON now that they actually have the specs of the bid (not before like they did last time).

[MHalblaub]

Or just ignore survivability altogether (like NG did) and somehow get the AF to not count it against you.

No, but it wasn't so much about passive or active protection measures. The main difference the Air Force found was about some software features.

Did you see the previous (may 2007) GAO report that said the AF did not adequately justify the need for cargo?

Yes, passenger capability was also questioned.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07566t.pdf
and
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07367r.pdf

DOD further stated that its Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Air Force concluded that the analysis was sufficient justification for the capability and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the requirement.

Then just take the better tanker, KC-45.

And now that the KC30 is the more expensive option there is analysis required to justify the additional expense.

One option costs more. That is not identical with more expensive. You most see the relation between costs and received performance.

According to the GAO approved numbers for Fleet Effectiveness (KC-45 1.9 / KC-767 1.79) with a fleet of 169 KC-45 you can do the job of 179 KC-767. So you can retire 20 KC-135 earlier, relieve 10 C-17 or lease them to FedEx.

Oh and while they are at it maybe they should run the numbers on the MIL CON now that they actually have the specs of the bid (not before like they did last time).

Like the “need for seat storage”? This is a dead end calculation. Air Force won't buy for each plane seats. That would be 34,000 seats just for KC-767 fleet (40,000 for KC-45)! Air Force will buy same amount of seats independent of aircraft. But first Air Force need to know how much seats are needed (GAO).

[djwright]

It costs more.

There are laws on the book about what justification needs to be done to go with the more expensive option. This wasn't done because the AF made it so it looked like the 767 was the more costly option.

You can make the argument about value for the extra cost, but you have to do it with numbers and analysis.

“More, more, more” sounds nice but the law requires more than just monosyllabic catch phrases.

From the GAO report:

Here, we agree that the SSET’s evaluation identified and documented the SRD requirements under which the firms’ evaluated strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Nevertheless, the record does not establish that the SSAC and SSA, in considering those strengths and weaknesses, applied the relative weights identified in the RFP for the various SRD requirements (under which the KPPs were most important). Moreover, the record does not show any consideration by the SSAC or SSA of the fact that Boeing’s proposal was evaluated as satisfying significantly more SRD requirements than Northrop Grumman’s.

and a little further down:

Although the record thus evidences that most of Boeing’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under KPP requirements, and conversely most of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under less important non-KPP/KSA requirements,45 we have found no document in the contemporaneous evaluation record that shows that the SSAC or SSA gave any meaningful consideration to the weights that were to be assigned to the various KPP, KSA, and other requirements. That is, the SSAC’s briefing slides to the SSA and its PAR do no more than identify the SRD requirements for which the evaluated discriminators were assessed, but do not evidence any consideration of the descending order of importance assigned to these various SRD requirements.
In its briefing to the SSA, the SSAC merely reports each of the firms’ “advantages” without any analysis of whether or not Boeing’s “advantages” (which as indicated above are mostly derived from KPP objectives) were entitled to greater weight than Northrop Grumman’s advantages (which are mostly derived from less important non-KPP/KSA requirements).

This is like losing the Super Bowl, but only after the refs decide that a touchdown is worth 4 points and a field goal 5. (and they don't tell you this until time runs out).

The RFP laid out a scoring system. The evaluators chose to ignore it. Or they failed to document that it was applied.

If nothing more this should stop the mind numbing repeating of “fair and transparent”. Obviously this process was neither.

[cmdr straker]

you could show him it written in blood and he will still argue that EADS is the better plane even tho it is a TURD.

I think MHalblaub is so full of his know it all B.S waving his white FRENCH surrender flag! he has no clue, he just likes to think he has the knowledge of those us who have flown and worked on airplanes Boeing has built for the USAF and do far more and lasted longer than they where intended to do.

He has no clue what it takes for a airplane to do a tanker mission, let alone ground crew preflights. Operationally the KC-767 is a far greater aircraft than EADS could ever think of making.

[cmdr straker]

you could show him it written in blood and he will still argue that EADS is the better plane even tho it is a TURD.

I think MHalblaub is so full of his know it all B.S waving his white FRENCH surrender flag! he has no clue, he just likes to think he has the knowledge of those us who have flown and worked on airplanes Boeing has built for the USAF and do far more and lasted longer than they where intended to do.

He has no clue what it takes for a airplane to do a tanker mission, let alone ground crew preflights. Operationally the KC-767 is a far greater aircraft than EADS could ever think of making.

[djwright]

Alas I think you are right. In fact I get the feeling that NG hired a few people to post comments on forums. I am sure they thought this would be a cutting edge PR technique.

But when you see there really isn't any reasoning with them it does et old.

I notice none of them really seem to address any of the concerns raised. They just keep repeating the same NG/EADS talking points.

I do believe (protectionist or not) that the US should decide what best suits the needs of our military and WHERE to purchase those items. To lose this kind of capability is not in our national interest.

(for some of you Francophiles please explain the rationale for spending billions to build a copycat version of GPS, which you get to use for free. Or justify the $30B you spent to develop the A400 when you could have bought C-130s)

[cmdr straker]

well put..

boogles the mind to think they are sold on that turd ( scarebus) its not even a northrop bird, over 50% of the profits will not be spent here it goes to FRANCE. stupid. And it CANNOT repeat CANNOT do the job that the KC-767 can and that is replace the KC-135. sure the EADS can haul more cargo or people but that is not what a tanker is for.

Wait and see how many countries find out that the planes built by EADS don’t add up to what they were suppose to be. Like there A-400 bet it will never be as reliable or flexable as the C-130. Glad the Army/AIr FOrce went with the C-27J over the EADS entry which did not add up to what the RFP called for either.

[MHalblaub]

Or justify the $30B you spent to develop the A400 when you could have bought C-130s.

$30B? Is the exchange rate already that bad?

Several countries wanted more than C-130 offered. Like to airlift their APC. C-130 can't lift vehicle like German Puma, French VBCI or AMX 30, Spanish ASCOD AFV or British Warrior. C-17 is far to big for most countries which dislike to have more than one tactical airlifter. Several countries will replace C-130 or C-160 with A400M.

spending billions to build a copycat version of GPS, which you get to use for free.

It's then up to the EU to decide when to shut down or operate their positioning system.

Posted by a rationalist with distant French ancestors.

[Always Independent]

“EADS Airbus 330 tanker’s max weight is 507,000 pounds”

KC-10 Extender:
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Aerial tanker and transport
Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: Three General Electric CF6-50C2 turbofans
Thrust: 52,500 pounds (23,625 kilograms), each engine
Length: 181 feet, 7 inches (54.4 meters)
Height: 58 feet, 1 inch (17.4 meters)
Wingspan: 165 feet, 4.5 inches (50 meters)
Speed: 619 mph (Mach 0.825)
Ceiling: 42,000 feet (12,727 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 590,000 pounds (265,500 kilograms)
Range: 4,400 miles (3,800 nautical miles) with cargo; 11,500 miles (10,000 nautical miles) without cargo
Maximum Cargo Payload: 170,000 pounds (76,560 kilograms)
Pallet Positions: 27
Maximum Fuel Load: 356,000 pounds (160,200 kilograms)
Crew: Four (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and boom operator) Certain missions may require additional crew members. In aeromedical evacuation missions, a basic crew of five (two flight nurses and three medical technicians) is added. Medical crew may be altered as required

So the Northrop Grumman offering is too big?

[Always Independent]

Boeing has their facility in place and they don’t have any of the delivered operational yet.

[r9etb]

So the Northrop Grumman offering is too big?

Discussed in detail upthread....

[Always Independent]

I don’t think NG needed to hire anyone to post, nor Boeing. But if the US does decide to choose the NG offering and that it thinks its the best choice, will you be willing to live with that? I think not! Remember all EADS is providing is a basic airframe. All other systems related to the tanker conversion will be provided by companies in the US. So where is the lost capability? Boeing will still be building airframes, maybe not 767s but they’ll still be building aircraft.

I believe they built their own GPS because the were afraid of getting locked out in the time of war and the US was not providing/allowing access to the most precise capability of the system.