Posted on 12/07/2010 7:43:52 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Makes too much sense. Thus it cannot be allowed to happen.
Ok I have a question...Why if we originally built KC-135s and KC-10s why can’t we just use those molds and make some more. I mean if the United States Taxpayer paid for these airplanes once why can’t we do it again...I mean we do own these molds...don’t we?
I am all for a split buy if they double the procurement budget. The KC-X contract calls for 15 aircraft per year, way too slow.
15 KC-767s and 15 KC-45s would be a nice pace, and easily funded with unspent TARP money.
nice thought, but with very few exceptions, aircraft are not made from “molds” but I think you may have hit on an idea there.
Only a small difference in load, not enough to split the fleet, however there is a huge difference in quality and reliability. The Boeing product is far superior to Airbus.
The Airbus would be sitting on the ramp broke, waiting for parts. It’s an over engineered, overpriced piece of junk, a throw away a/c that breaks up into tiny little pieces.
The Boeing… a 767 is proven, with much higher reliability and lower maintenance cost. Just make sure to hang Pratts on it.
For the military there is but one intelligent choice… Boeing 767 / Pratts
I'm sure that Chevrolet owns the molds for '55 Bel-Aires, but they're not going to simply just crank out more whenever they feel like it.
KC-135s haven't been built since the 1960s. KC-10s the 1980s.
This KC-X competition was supposed to take an off-the-shelf airliner airframe and modify it for the tanker role, which in theory should have been much easier, cheaper, and faster than trying to restart production on a 50 year old airframe.
Unfortunately, whenever the Pentagon buys a new something, they go overboard with the "it's also gotta have..."-itis, cramming so much new technology into the airframe that it takes years to figure it all out.
If all you want is a simple tanker, both the KC-767 and the KC-30 are ready today. If you want a boom that must deliver x amount more fuel then the existing models, then we get this long drawn out competition that is in its third iteration.
So why did the USAF select the Airbus product in 2008???
Someone with more background than I should weigh in regarding the specs of the KC-10, KC-135 and KC-X, but I suspect that in the design universe of payload-speed-range, the KC-X is asking for more than either of the previous designs could deliver. I'm good with that concept. The USAF should have the best idea of what kind of tanker they need in the 21st century.
The bigger problem is twofold. First, USAF has totally screwed the pooch in its attempts to award a contract. I've seen it done badly any number of times, but I've never seen it done this badly and this consistently for a given procurement. Second, this ENTIRE procurement is about politics and lying to the American people. The morning drive in the DC area is an amazing experience. In addition to the madness on the highways, we get radio ads for government procurement. Computer services, ships, and aircraft are hawked like they were just the most normal thing to be spending your money on, don't you know. Lately, the Boeing ads have been incredible half-truths and apples v. bananas comparisons between their design and the EADS plane. Whether the subject is the percentage of American content, whether Americans or foreigners will be building the plane, or any other topic - the fact that Boeing is now a Chicago-based company is pretty obvious. About the only thing they haven't done is to publicly threaten to kneecap someone. As an example (and I don't have the current figures), most Americans are probably not aware that in the original proposals the EADS plane would have had more American content and American labor hours than the Boeing plane, and OBTW, it carried more fuel to dispense to its fighter-customers.
Why buy new tankers when you can spend the billions on extended unemployment benefits instead? It just doesn’t make any sense! /s/
Unfair decision where major mistakes were made in the selection process.
Additionally, please read why we are now headed to that same unfair decision (again):
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/tanker-wars—why-boeing-is-losing?a=1&c=1171
Senior executives at Boeing have grown pessimistic about their prospects for prevailing in the latest Air Force tanker competition. Their counterparts at competitors EADS — the parent company of Airbus — are correspondingly confident. This is surprising, because the Boeing entry in the competition has much lower life-cycle costs than the bigger EADS entry, while still carrying much more fuel than the plane it would replace. Many observers thought that when Northrop Grumman dropped out of the tanker competition and EADS had to go it along, the European company would be hobbled in competing against Boeing. So what went wrong for Boeing?
The biggest thing that went wrong was that the Air Force chose to ignore a ruling by the world's preeminent trade body that Airbus has engaged in a 40-year pattern of predatory business practices to expand its share of the commercial transport market. The reason this matters is that the two rivals are both offering modified airliners in their tanker proposals, and the Airbus entry was built using $5.7 billion in illegal subsidies. By failing to take that finding into account, the Air Force has enabled Airbus to price its plane more aggressively than any purely commercial company could, leveling what otherwise would have been a huge disparity in the acquisition cost of the two planes.
A second and related factor is that the Air Force has calculated the post-production life-cycle cost of the Airbus plane using assumptions that tend to minimize the higher cost of operating a bigger plane. Because the EADS entry has 40 more feet of wingspan than the Boeing plane and corresponding greater weight, it burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. Its dimensions are so much bigger than those of the Eisenhower-era tankers being replaced that the Air Force will need to modify hangars and other ground infrastructure to accommodate the EADS plane. But Boeing's team is convinced the Air Force has failed to capture the full life-cycle burden of fuel and construction for the bigger plane, and thus made the Airbus transport look more affordable than it really is.
A third factor is the calculation of warfighting effectiveness ratings — the metrics which the Air Force inadvertently released to the wrong teams last month. As in the first round of competition, the complex warfighting model used to calculate effectiveness in stressing wartime scenarios continues to favor the larger Airbus plane due to its greater fuel-carrying capacity. But what many outside observers have failed to note is that the success of the EADS entry in that comparison is tied directly to the fact that its planes were allowed to access bases denied to the Boeing planes. The Airbus tanker literally cannot complete the specified missions without access to those bases, and yet Boeing was not allowed access in the modeling of comparative wartime performance.
A fourth factor weighing against Boeing in the comparisons is a pattern of allowances made for the EADS entry that amounted to bending the rules to keep its proposal viable. First, the Air Force delayed the deadline for the EADS proposal. Second, it allowed EADS to respond late to engineering inquiries from evaluators. Third, it deleted a performance requirement concerning secure communications from the solicitation because EADS could not meet it. Fourth, it waived duties on the importation of certain key parts required in the EADS plane. Finally, it sought to minimize EADS wrongdoing in viewing competition-sensitive information that Boeing did not view. Cumulatively, these various instances can be construed as a pattern of bias favoring the European team.
Boeing has not concluded from all this that the tanker competition is irretrievably lost, but I have. When the customer allows a team to bid below cost by leveraging illegal subsidies, understates operational cost differences, permits only one team to access key bases in warfighting models, and repeatedly bends rules in favor a particular side, the outcome is obvious. The question is what Boeing intends to do about it.
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Ditto! Remember this goes back well over 10 years. The USAF almost had Boeing continuing the 767 line for this and other platforms (including a Joint STARS/AWACS variant), but the entire effort started over after the scandal with that female General. She went to jail if I am not mistaken. I was OK with the competition for the KC-X until Northrop Grumman dropped out. Now it has to be Boeing, IMHO.
More jobs with an Airbus ?
More jobs for military mechanics. The dispatch rate is horrible, will sit broken out in the cold, and won’t fit in our hangars. It’s a piece of crap.
The Boeing 767 is a perfect choice.
Do you have a dog in this fight?
Goofy, only our government would by a car too big to fit in the garage.
Goofy, only our government would by a car too big to fit in the garage.
Goofy, only our government would buy a car too big to fit in the garage.
Little Tommy "Tax Cheat" Daschle's wife Linda was a paid Boeing lobbyist for the over priced leased 767s deal, iirc.
Nope, just 28 years of experience
Just hoping they purchase ‘the best tool for the job’
The Boeing 767 is a far superior product. Newer design doesn’t mean it’s better.
The Airbus was built for the airlines to save fuel cost. It’s too lightweight for military purposes.
It has all the bells and whisles but in the end will sit broke when the 767 keeps on truckin’
KISS’
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.