KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Links to AWST (Ares) on latest KC-X RFP.
Here It Is: Tanker RFP
Northrop -- 96-98% Chance of a No Bid
Tanker Tea Leaves: Sen. Shelby is Steaming
What Vexes -- And Maybe Frightens -- the Tanker Triumvirate
Here It Is: Tanker RFP
Northrop -- 96-98% Chance of a No Bid
Tanker Tea Leaves: Sen. Shelby is Steaming
What Vexes -- And Maybe Frightens -- the Tanker Triumvirate
Last edited by ORAC; 25th Feb 2010 at 10:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's put the cat among the pigeons, what can they do if EADS withdraws. Interesting to note that all the aircraft will have a receiver capability just like our new tankers will. Oh no!!!!, I forgot, ours will not.
Last edited by Art Field; 25th Feb 2010 at 12:54. Reason: Sense
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF NGC are going to pull out, it's really in their interests to do so sooner rather than later. The effect of that will be to leave the door open for Boeing to charge the USAF whatever they like for the plane.
Boeing have been given NGC's pricing structure for the last bid, but NGC do not have Boeing's.
Boeing wrote and currently maintain the software which will be used to determine the fleet effectiveness value for each bidder
The KC-X RFP asks for an aircraft almost identical to the existing KC-135, therefore the additional capability of the A330 is only valid if it's cost is no more than 1% higher than the 767.
I do not see any value in NGC bidding other than one small detail.. All through this process, NGC have protested and claimed bias toward 767. Boeing have always claimed they are happy with the RFP and acquisition process, therefore, if NGC come in with a lower price, then surely Boeing have no grounds for appeal?
Boeing have been given NGC's pricing structure for the last bid, but NGC do not have Boeing's.
Boeing wrote and currently maintain the software which will be used to determine the fleet effectiveness value for each bidder
The KC-X RFP asks for an aircraft almost identical to the existing KC-135, therefore the additional capability of the A330 is only valid if it's cost is no more than 1% higher than the 767.
I do not see any value in NGC bidding other than one small detail.. All through this process, NGC have protested and claimed bias toward 767. Boeing have always claimed they are happy with the RFP and acquisition process, therefore, if NGC come in with a lower price, then surely Boeing have no grounds for appeal?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There doesn't seem to be much point in NG/EADS bidding on the RFP as it stands, it's clearly been written to nullify any advantage the KC30/45 demonstrated in the first competition. As NG/EADS are at a disadvantage in not knowing the pricing structure from Boeing, while Boeing has their previous bid details, they would have to submit a ridiculously low price to have any chance. Boeing OTOH can easily calculate any reasonable bid from NG/EADS and simply need to undercut them to to avoid the necessity of actually looking at relative merits.
Their best option is to announce their intention early, leaving the way open for Boeing to submit any price they want and with practically any variant of the 767. As the required standards are equivalent to the KC-135 they wouldn't even have to develop a new variant as they proposed last time, simply dust off the JASF/Italian versions, slap on the price tickets, and laugh all the way to the bank.
The only winners in this are Boeing and their shareholders.
Their best option is to announce their intention early, leaving the way open for Boeing to submit any price they want and with practically any variant of the 767. As the required standards are equivalent to the KC-135 they wouldn't even have to develop a new variant as they proposed last time, simply dust off the JASF/Italian versions, slap on the price tickets, and laugh all the way to the bank.
The only winners in this are Boeing and their shareholders.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true Brick, some research and analysis will show you that the US Industrial base stood to gain either way, only NGC were able to quantify their job creation. Boeing are merely extending the life of an old production line for an old aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick - some (GOP, no less) Senators would beg to differ.
KC-45 is a more capable aircraft (as they found out last time), so I would humbly submit the major losers are the USAF. Oh, and the poor bloody taxpayers....
S41
KC-45 is a more capable aircraft (as they found out last time), so I would humbly submit the major losers are the USAF. Oh, and the poor bloody taxpayers....
S41
Normally the purveyors of right wing jingoistic cant which would embarrass even a Daily Mail writer, here's something quite sensible from Fox News:
FOXNews.com - Mr. President, Here's How to Save 100,000 Jobs
A competitive bid will surely bring the greatest benefits.
By the way, has Boeing yet managed to get the wing-mounted AAR pods to work properly? Solved the buffet and flutter issues? I'm sure the Italians are waiting patiently for their 3 aircraft which Boeing is still using for flight test to be delivered.....
FOXNews.com - Mr. President, Here's How to Save 100,000 Jobs
A competitive bid will surely bring the greatest benefits.
By the way, has Boeing yet managed to get the wing-mounted AAR pods to work properly? Solved the buffet and flutter issues? I'm sure the Italians are waiting patiently for their 3 aircraft which Boeing is still using for flight test to be delivered.....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle there are two answers to that well founded question..
1. NO
and
2. Check the Boeing Tanker website, does it show any footage of real aircraft refuelling from wing pods or centreline hose and drogue IAW with the KC-X solicitation?? ( for guidance see answer 1.)
However in their defence the USAF have asked specifically for a limited capability Tanker, so thats why the 767 is a good fit.
1. NO
and
2. Check the Boeing Tanker website, does it show any footage of real aircraft refuelling from wing pods or centreline hose and drogue IAW with the KC-X solicitation?? ( for guidance see answer 1.)
However in their defence the USAF have asked specifically for a limited capability Tanker, so thats why the 767 is a good fit.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
I make no claims on which is the better product. I freely admit to not being qualified to offer such an opinion.
Keeping the US industial base is a national interest however. Regardless of NG teaming with EADS, and some (or even most) of the work being done in Alabama, the net effect would/will be a loss of US capability.
Whether that's inevitable or not is a separate issue.
How much moaning do you see here about the F-35 and/or other primarily US-based platforms being purchased, in cooperation and with much input from, other users - RAF/FAA/RAAF, etc? How the loss of sovereign manufacturing capabilty is a national tragedy?
I'd prefer to avoid that situation for the US.
I make no claims on which is the better product. I freely admit to not being qualified to offer such an opinion.
Keeping the US industial base is a national interest however. Regardless of NG teaming with EADS, and some (or even most) of the work being done in Alabama, the net effect would/will be a loss of US capability.
Whether that's inevitable or not is a separate issue.
How much moaning do you see here about the F-35 and/or other primarily US-based platforms being purchased, in cooperation and with much input from, other users - RAF/FAA/RAAF, etc? How the loss of sovereign manufacturing capabilty is a national tragedy?
I'd prefer to avoid that situation for the US.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick,
I don't agree - NG will have the integration, development, T&E capability for the tanker bits, and EADS US will be (or at least would've) been building A330Fs in the US. The US remains fully capable of producing large twins and integrating the tanker bits irrespective of who wins.
A split buy seems v shortsighted - and I note that Fox's "Fair and Balanced" expert is also a consultant to NG.
S41
I don't agree - NG will have the integration, development, T&E capability for the tanker bits, and EADS US will be (or at least would've) been building A330Fs in the US. The US remains fully capable of producing large twins and integrating the tanker bits irrespective of who wins.
A split buy seems v shortsighted - and I note that Fox's "Fair and Balanced" expert is also a consultant to NG.
S41
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always felt the new tanker, as a strategic asset, should be built by an American contractor.
Additionally, the philosophical constraints Airbus imposes through software, limiting aircraft performance, are not suitable during combat extremes.
It seems now the contract is increasingly likely to go to Boeing, as it should.
With 30 years of tanker experience, and a current Airbus airline pilot, I think I'm seeing it right, and I hope the thing goes to Boeing.
If it's any consolation, Airbus makes a superb airliner.
Additionally, the philosophical constraints Airbus imposes through software, limiting aircraft performance, are not suitable during combat extremes.
It seems now the contract is increasingly likely to go to Boeing, as it should.
With 30 years of tanker experience, and a current Airbus airline pilot, I think I'm seeing it right, and I hope the thing goes to Boeing.
If it's any consolation, Airbus makes a superb airliner.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintsman
Exactly how much of a B767 is manufactured in the USA?
By content or value?
By content, ~15% is made in Japan (fuselage), the tail is made in Italy and there are other major components made in the UK. About 65% of the aircraft is made in the US.
By "value", 85% is US (including labor for final assembly, etc).
The KC-45A is ~60% US "by value".
So which new tanker has Bubba Boeing come up with since the 1950s? I don't include changing engines or avionics in that question.
Yes, they had the KC-50, KC-97 and KC-135. Not much since then though, apart from recycled KC-135s - the KC-10A being a McDonnell Douglas design.
A limited capability tanker? You could dumb down the KC-45A to the KC-767 level if you:
1. Reduced the fuel by at least 20 tonnes (that's 44000 lb to the colonials) - or, if you wanted to use a normal 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/Still-air, make that 35 tonnes / 77000 lb due to the KC-767A's poor ASDA requirement at high AUW.
2. Reduced the size of the underfloor cargo bay and narrowed it.
3. Took out all the seats and blanked off the windows, narrowed the cabin and shortened it, then fitted Urrmerikan 'Rendition-Class' palletised seating.
4. Removed the wing pods.
5. Removed the centreline hose.
But hey, go ahead and let your ignorant redneck jingoistic hor$e**** take precedence over capability for the 'war fighter'....
If you want a second rate, expensive and unproven design, take the risk and let yourselves be robbed blind by 'ol Bubba Boeing.
Yes, they had the KC-50, KC-97 and KC-135. Not much since then though, apart from recycled KC-135s - the KC-10A being a McDonnell Douglas design.
A limited capability tanker? You could dumb down the KC-45A to the KC-767 level if you:
1. Reduced the fuel by at least 20 tonnes (that's 44000 lb to the colonials) - or, if you wanted to use a normal 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/Still-air, make that 35 tonnes / 77000 lb due to the KC-767A's poor ASDA requirement at high AUW.
2. Reduced the size of the underfloor cargo bay and narrowed it.
3. Took out all the seats and blanked off the windows, narrowed the cabin and shortened it, then fitted Urrmerikan 'Rendition-Class' palletised seating.
4. Removed the wing pods.
5. Removed the centreline hose.
But hey, go ahead and let your ignorant redneck jingoistic hor$e**** take precedence over capability for the 'war fighter'....
If you want a second rate, expensive and unproven design, take the risk and let yourselves be robbed blind by 'ol Bubba Boeing.
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Feb 2010 at 07:58.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But hey, go ahead and let your ignorant redneck jingoistic hor$e**** take precedence over capability for the 'war fighter'....
Say, how about that British aerospace manufacturing base?
I'd prefer to learn from other's mistakes.
And no points for creative insults. Were you in a hurry or have standards been permanently relaxed?