KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not, ever, want US policy decided by another nation.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing's trash talk of Airbus makes them look petty; and as devoid of arguments as they are of flying KC-X tanker prototypes.
The real argument comes down to technical risk and execution capacity: Airbus have a number of flying A330 MRTTs with pods that work, boom that works and UAARSI (sp?) that works. AFAIK it doesn't have a flying full-spec KC-X prototype, complete with cargo door and up-rated floor, but suffice to say it's light years ahead of where the Boeing mob are.
Which presumably means that Airbus have a pretty solid idea of the costs of production and can low-ball the bid, whereas Boeing have a huge amount of execution risk for an unbuilt concept* in a fixed-price contract. If that's the case, you'd have to pray hard if you go in low-ball and hope it's all alright on the night.
Personally, I think that it's wide open and that EADS may well win it - and before the usual cynicism kicks in, remember that KC-30 (as it was then) actually did win it last time out.
How much would the OzAF charge Airbus to let them deliver the bid to Andrews AFB in a pair of their jets? A little tanker-tanker refuelling fly-by
of the Pentagon has shades of 367-80's barrel roll....
S41
*If this is unfair to Boeing, I apologise profusely - but what % of the drawings have been released and how's the integration of the new flight deck and the wing-pods going?
The real argument comes down to technical risk and execution capacity: Airbus have a number of flying A330 MRTTs with pods that work, boom that works and UAARSI (sp?) that works. AFAIK it doesn't have a flying full-spec KC-X prototype, complete with cargo door and up-rated floor, but suffice to say it's light years ahead of where the Boeing mob are.
Which presumably means that Airbus have a pretty solid idea of the costs of production and can low-ball the bid, whereas Boeing have a huge amount of execution risk for an unbuilt concept* in a fixed-price contract. If that's the case, you'd have to pray hard if you go in low-ball and hope it's all alright on the night.
Personally, I think that it's wide open and that EADS may well win it - and before the usual cynicism kicks in, remember that KC-30 (as it was then) actually did win it last time out.
How much would the OzAF charge Airbus to let them deliver the bid to Andrews AFB in a pair of their jets? A little tanker-tanker refuelling fly-by
of the Pentagon has shades of 367-80's barrel roll....
S41
*If this is unfair to Boeing, I apologise profusely - but what % of the drawings have been released and how's the integration of the new flight deck and the wing-pods going?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you not imagine for a second how laughable that statement sounds to all those millions of people all over the world who have to constantly live with their policy decided - adversely from their point of view - by the USA?
It's much better to be the driver and not a passenger is one polite way of stating it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Brick, I thought I'd made the point, the USA isn't the driver.
Whether you buy Boeing or Airbus, the DoD is managing a multinational project with between 30-60% built overseas.
As far as the claim that buying the 767 ensures US availability of components, I'd point out that, for a very thin production line with no other customers, the 767 spares and support will rapidly be outsourced by Boeing to reduce costs.
If, however, the Airbus is selected, then a US A330F production line will ensure a US based production and spares capability for decades to come - with the costs offset by the civilian market.
And that is the other killer. Boeing will have to support every single cost on a production line for less than 200 aircraft - but Airbus can spread the entire production/support cost over a production line for civilian freighters which is only just being offered to the market.
Financially you have to wonder how Boeing can support their bid except at a massive financial loss - unless they offload it to the tax payer.
Sorry, did someone whisper subsidy?
Whether you buy Boeing or Airbus, the DoD is managing a multinational project with between 30-60% built overseas.
As far as the claim that buying the 767 ensures US availability of components, I'd point out that, for a very thin production line with no other customers, the 767 spares and support will rapidly be outsourced by Boeing to reduce costs.
If, however, the Airbus is selected, then a US A330F production line will ensure a US based production and spares capability for decades to come - with the costs offset by the civilian market.
And that is the other killer. Boeing will have to support every single cost on a production line for less than 200 aircraft - but Airbus can spread the entire production/support cost over a production line for civilian freighters which is only just being offered to the market.
Financially you have to wonder how Boeing can support their bid except at a massive financial loss - unless they offload it to the tax payer.
Sorry, did someone whisper subsidy?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
orac, your points are noted and taken.
I still prefer Boeing over EADS for national and economic reasons.
As to the technical merits, I still leave that to experts as I've stated before.
I still prefer Boeing over EADS for national and economic reasons.
As to the technical merits, I still leave that to experts as I've stated before.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick,
Fair enough, but I can't see how an Airbus victory here resulting in a new production line in the US (read: lots of high wage, high skill jobs) could possibly be a bad thing given that Boeing have all the work they can handle with 787? Especially as this is a production line that will be turning out civilian A330Fs for the whole world (thereby being US exports and aiding the US balance of payments), and (sotto voce) if these Americans can show that they're lower cost for final assembly than western Europe (not unlikely), I suspect that they may get a slug more civilian work, too (cf the A320 line in China).
In this sense, it's just the same as a Toyota plant in the US. And they seem to do alright.
And then of course, there's the small point that the A330 MRTT is simply a better aircraft for the USAF, and that as with the AV-8A, the US forces have a record for overcoming "not made here syndrome" for something that works for them - even if it means building it Stateside. Long may it continue!
S41
Fair enough, but I can't see how an Airbus victory here resulting in a new production line in the US (read: lots of high wage, high skill jobs) could possibly be a bad thing given that Boeing have all the work they can handle with 787? Especially as this is a production line that will be turning out civilian A330Fs for the whole world (thereby being US exports and aiding the US balance of payments), and (sotto voce) if these Americans can show that they're lower cost for final assembly than western Europe (not unlikely), I suspect that they may get a slug more civilian work, too (cf the A320 line in China).
In this sense, it's just the same as a Toyota plant in the US. And they seem to do alright.
And then of course, there's the small point that the A330 MRTT is simply a better aircraft for the USAF, and that as with the AV-8A, the US forces have a record for overcoming "not made here syndrome" for something that works for them - even if it means building it Stateside. Long may it continue!
S41
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Australian
Boeing have just been burnt over the fixed price contract for Wedgetail, so I guess it is highly unlikely that they will enter into another fixed price contract for development of a new aircraft.
Boeing are hopeful of more customers for their B737 AEW&C, but can they expect that anyone other than the USAF will order their 767 tanker?
Boeing Wedgetail Aircraft Accepted Into Royal Australian Air Force
Y_G
BOEING will pay the Australian government tens of millions of dollars in compensation in a final commercial settlement over the late delivery of the RAAF's $4 billion airborne early warning aircraft. After months of bruising negotiations, the two parties agreed last week on a deal that will see Boeing pay the commonwealth both a cash settlement and provide further technical help at no cost to the troubled Wedgetail project.
A spokesman for DefenceMinister John Faulkner yesterday declined to reveal the exact sum paid by Boeing in liquidated damages to the commonwealth for failing to meet the delivery timetable and the agreed performance specification for the Wedgetail's complex systems, including its highly advanced phased array radar.
But it is understood the payment is about $100 million, making it one of the largest liquidated damages payouts involving a Defence Department contract.
Boeing has also spent an estimated $US1.7 billion ($1.9bn) of its own funds trying to fix the glitches in Wedgetail over and above its fixed-price $4bn contract with Defence, but they are already running four years late following a string of developmental problems.
A spokesman for DefenceMinister John Faulkner yesterday declined to reveal the exact sum paid by Boeing in liquidated damages to the commonwealth for failing to meet the delivery timetable and the agreed performance specification for the Wedgetail's complex systems, including its highly advanced phased array radar.
But it is understood the payment is about $100 million, making it one of the largest liquidated damages payouts involving a Defence Department contract.
Boeing has also spent an estimated $US1.7 billion ($1.9bn) of its own funds trying to fix the glitches in Wedgetail over and above its fixed-price $4bn contract with Defence, but they are already running four years late following a string of developmental problems.
Boeing are hopeful of more customers for their B737 AEW&C, but can they expect that anyone other than the USAF will order their 767 tanker?
Boeing Wedgetail Aircraft Accepted Into Royal Australian Air Force
Y_G
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STUPID!
...spares capability for decades to come...
USAF says the KC-10A is too large. If true, then so is the A330.
Likewise, hauling cargo is a capability looking for a need. The USAF doesn't want any more C-17 - they have enough - and the airlines like Atlas, Evergreen and Omni are doing the job at far lower cost than the USAF could do it, even with dedicated fleets, let alone a dual use plane.
The used airliner market is the place to get additional refuelers - if there's a need. The cost would be about 10% of the cost of this new program, and the planes would come on line much quicker.
Airbus and Boeing need to wean themselves from the Military-Industrial complex, and its fraud, waste and abuse.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB,
No, and yes.
AFAIK, the challenge with the former is finding enough low time aircraft in a common configuration that will stand conversion and provide the capability the USAF is looking for.
It's not quite the problem the RAF ran into with the VC-10s (ie, operating a unique fleet of aircraft) but it's still likely to be a nightmare.
S41
The used airliner market is the place to get additional refuelers - if there's a need.
AFAIK, the challenge with the former is finding enough low time aircraft in a common configuration that will stand conversion and provide the capability the USAF is looking for.
It's not quite the problem the RAF ran into with the VC-10s (ie, operating a unique fleet of aircraft) but it's still likely to be a nightmare.
S41
Greybeard has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the potential of old airliners such as the 757 being turned into tankers. As has been stated previously, the 757 is all but useless as a tanker due to its low fuel capability, small wing span and the disproportionate effort which would be needed to add a boom to the fuselage structure....
I note from the latest ARSAG newsletter that Boeing are still spouting the same old nonsense:
What complete and utter drivel. What they really mean is "The NoGo tanker would have an old-fashioned control yoke and no flight envelope protection, giving the pilot the potential facility to destroy the aircraft during unnecessarily aggressive manoeuvring should the USAF be daft enough to employ the aircraft contrary to ATP-56(B) doctrine".
Face it, Bubba, you're going to need better reasons to back up your unflown 'paper plane' tanker.
I hear on the grapevine that the Italian KC-767I system despatch reliability is pretty lousy - and that the pods/flutter/buffet problems still haven't been fully solved. Over 5 years late and ol' Bubba still can't get it to work? What confidence would anyone other than the most jingoistic redneck have in the 767 NoGo development schedule?
I note from the latest ARSAG newsletter that Boeing are still spouting the same old nonsense:
A ‘Pilot-in Command’ philosophy has been noted as a hallmark of the Boeing flight deck design, with familiar flight controls that provide pilots with important multisensory visual and tactile feedback on airplane behavior. This flight deck philosophy provides pilots with predictable and consistent flight control at all times, reducing response time in normal and emergency situations. The NewGen Tanker also allows the pilots access to the full flight envelope with no artificial computer law limits, giving the pilots immediate combat maneuverability whenever needed.
Finally, Boeing officials proudly point to the NewGen Tanker providing 21st century crews and their aircraft survivability enhancements unprecedented in a tanker aircraft, allowing them to safely operate in harm’s way.
Finally, Boeing officials proudly point to the NewGen Tanker providing 21st century crews and their aircraft survivability enhancements unprecedented in a tanker aircraft, allowing them to safely operate in harm’s way.
Face it, Bubba, you're going to need better reasons to back up your unflown 'paper plane' tanker.
I hear on the grapevine that the Italian KC-767I system despatch reliability is pretty lousy - and that the pods/flutter/buffet problems still haven't been fully solved. Over 5 years late and ol' Bubba still can't get it to work? What confidence would anyone other than the most jingoistic redneck have in the 767 NoGo development schedule?
Last edited by BEagle; 27th May 2010 at 21:38.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Winning the last war is typical military thinking. The UAVs are successful right now, and I haven't heard of them needing aerial refueling. Where's the present and future need for aerial refueling?
USAF says the KC-10A is too large. If true, then so is the A330.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Beat me to it mate..
Graybeard, that post was total tosh.. sorry mate, but you clearly don't pay attention to modern requirements or understand modern concepts of operations.
Beagle - No arguments from me mate
Beat me to it mate..
Graybeard, that post was total tosh.. sorry mate, but you clearly don't pay attention to modern requirements or understand modern concepts of operations.
Beagle - No arguments from me mate
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Boeing have managed it.. All that political lobbying has paid off, and now the Pentagon will apply a penalty to the Airbus bid for KC-X as part of the rules governing FY2011 Defense Budget contracts.. well they couldn't build a plane, they couldn't match a price, so they had to resort to the good ole boys network.. well done Boeing
Of course this now puts the USA in direct contravention of the WTO rules of pariticpation so presumably there will be some very serious backlash towards Uncle Sam??
Of course this now puts the USA in direct contravention of the WTO rules of pariticpation so presumably there will be some very serious backlash towards Uncle Sam??
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course this now puts the USA in direct contravention of the WTO rules of pariticpation so presumably there will be some very serious backlash towards Uncle Sam??
..................
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backlash from WTO? Bring it ON!
We import six times as much as we export, so we win any trade war by stopping our present losses.
My solution is 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. We've had enough of toxic drywall, poisoned pet food and toothpaste, fatally tainted Heparin, and on and on. Aren't you finding the same in your imports?
Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month, we were importing 80% of our seafood, with less than 1% inspection. Alabama inspects all imported seafood, and rejects over half, due to toxins, antibiotics, etc., in fish that are raised in raw sewage and other foul fluids.
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS. Oil goo and hurricanes better be factored in to the cost.
GB
We import six times as much as we export, so we win any trade war by stopping our present losses.
My solution is 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. We've had enough of toxic drywall, poisoned pet food and toothpaste, fatally tainted Heparin, and on and on. Aren't you finding the same in your imports?
Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month, we were importing 80% of our seafood, with less than 1% inspection. Alabama inspects all imported seafood, and rejects over half, due to toxins, antibiotics, etc., in fish that are raised in raw sewage and other foul fluids.
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS. Oil goo and hurricanes better be factored in to the cost.
GB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month,"
the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!
and the EU buys twice as much defence kit from you than you buy from the EU
and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)
frankly the last thing the entire planet needs right now the USA included is a trade war
the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!
and the EU buys twice as much defence kit from you than you buy from the EU
and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)
frankly the last thing the entire planet needs right now the USA included is a trade war
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard,
speaking as a Brit who lived in Alabama, I'd like to provide a considered response to your well founded and clearly well researched post..
Cock.
speaking as a Brit who lived in Alabama, I'd like to provide a considered response to your well founded and clearly well researched post..
Cock.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick
And which category does Graybeard fit into??
BTW I am claiming "Witty".
I enjoy the Military Aircrew forum is that it usually is either informative or witty
BTW I am claiming "Witty".
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS
As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?
Anyway, I think the conclusion one can reach is that, whilst Americans might prefer a domestic design, if the competitor is superior and offers the possibility of more jobs within the US, they'd be mad to dismiss it.
But of course the bottom-feeding senators and their good ol' boy lobbyists will win the day - to the detriment of the USAF.
I keep harking back to ol' Bubba Boeing's dismal efforts with the KC-767I for Italy. Their KC-X proposal, the 767NoGo, represents even greater technological risk for the customer, particularly the decision to include the 7-late-7 flight deck. But perhaps those enormous winglets might just fix the flutter/buffet/hose stability problems?
Whereas the A330MRTT with its excellent Cobham Mission Equipment AAR kit goes from strength to strength.