USAF Fund B-52 Engine Replacement
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had no idea the point of carpet bombing was to "wipe out all opposition." Indeed its doubtful anything short of a nuke could do so, and even then there will likely be survivors. I believe there is a vast difference between the existence of survivors and the existence of an effective fighting force, and its neutralizing the latter that is the point of carpet bombing. So yes, plenty of Iraqi survivors, but no, no longer an effective fighting force. And that just applies to tactical use of carpet bombing. Carpet bombing is also effective at destroying manufacturing, transportation, governmental, and other strategic targets.
Last edited by KenV; 20th Mar 2018 at 16:45.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall A British company did a total nuts and bolts repair of a wing and marry it to a new fuselage then found that each one was a bit different..... In the end it cost an absolute fortune and the pollies scrapped the whole shebang just when it was about to come good....
I think there is a market in becoming the " official government aviation tooling scrapper" and buying it all then mothballing it and preserving the lot and showing the inspectors a pile of similar scrap
Then twenty years down the line when it's needed I " find the tooling " which had been mislabelled due to an admin error...... Lessons learned etc and you see where I'm going with this don't you??
Every engineer knows you never ever ever throw away a jig or a special tool, just in case
I think there is a market in becoming the " official government aviation tooling scrapper" and buying it all then mothballing it and preserving the lot and showing the inspectors a pile of similar scrap
Then twenty years down the line when it's needed I " find the tooling " which had been mislabelled due to an admin error...... Lessons learned etc and you see where I'm going with this don't you??
Every engineer knows you never ever ever throw away a jig or a special tool, just in case
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall A British company did a total nuts and bolts repair of a wing and marry it to a new fuselage then found that each one was a bit different..... In the end it cost an absolute fortune and the pollies scrapped the whole shebang just when it was about to come good....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But don't say we didn't warn you.....
Someone put the popcorn on, I'll get the pizza in the oven.
This will make an entertaining saga.
The book is..... Will it come in on.....??
1. Cost
2. Spec
3. Time
4. Without a significant political scandal
My twenty quid ( donating to RAFA if I lose ) says this won't achieve any of those four aims - but the closest to the mark will be spec
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok....
But don't say we didn't warn you.....
Someone put the popcorn on, I'll get the pizza in the oven.
This will make an entertaining saga.
The book is..... Will it come in on.....??
1. Cost
2. Spec
3. Time
4. Without a significant political scandal
My twenty quid ( donating to RAFA if I lose ) says this won't achieve any of those four aims - but the closest to the mark will be spec
But don't say we didn't warn you.....
Someone put the popcorn on, I'll get the pizza in the oven.
This will make an entertaining saga.
The book is..... Will it come in on.....??
1. Cost
2. Spec
3. Time
4. Without a significant political scandal
My twenty quid ( donating to RAFA if I lose ) says this won't achieve any of those four aims - but the closest to the mark will be spec
Before C-5 RERP USAF successfully undertook the KC-135 re-engine program, replacing the old J-57 turbo jets with modern CFM-56 turbofans. And before that industry (in this case GammaCorp with Douglas doing the actual engineering) very successfully undertook the re-engining of DC-8 airliners with CFM-56 turbofans. 707s (similar to but not the same as KC-135) have also been successfully re-engined with CFM-56 engines, with the last 10 years or so of production (all military derivatives of the 707) being equipped with CFM-56s. And then there are the many re-engining programs that fitted JT-8D low bypass turbofans to several different aircraft.
And finally, do not forget that the B-52 itself has already undergone an engine change over its lifetime, replacing J-57 turbojets with TF-33 turbo fans.
So what's the bottom line? This kind of project is not something new to either industry nor USAF, and has been completed very successfully multiple times on multiple different airframes. Is caution warranted? Certainly. Is the deep skepticism and even cynicism displayed here warranted? NOT.
Last edited by KenV; 21st Mar 2018 at 17:41.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who thinks that does not understand the complexity of such an undertaking. It is a complexity orders of magnitude greater than an engine change.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're making my point, Kenneth old chap.
Boeing certainly should have understood the complexities of the KC-46 and, accordingly, submitted a proposal with realistic costs and schedule - and stuck to it. Instead, they submitted a risky bid and then changed the manufacturing strategy in an attempt to reduce cost. The guy who announced that change - let's just say that he didn't face any negative consequences.
And as for C-5 RERP... "successfully"? It blew through Nunn-McCurdy and delivered 49 modded aircraft rather than the 108 originally planned.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf
Boeing certainly should have understood the complexities of the KC-46 and, accordingly, submitted a proposal with realistic costs and schedule - and stuck to it. Instead, they submitted a risky bid and then changed the manufacturing strategy in an attempt to reduce cost. The guy who announced that change - let's just say that he didn't face any negative consequences.
And as for C-5 RERP... "successfully"? It blew through Nunn-McCurdy and delivered 49 modded aircraft rather than the 108 originally planned.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The further point is that KC-46 has less than nothing to do with re-engining B-52s and why I did not include KC-46 in my post. You mentioning it here is a total red herring and yet another example of the butwhataboutery that is common in these sorts of threads.
And as for C-5 RERP... "successfully"? It blew through Nunn-McCurdy and delivered 49 modded aircraft rather than the 108 originally planned.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf
You also completely failed to understand the complex political dance that was going on when RERP was in the proposal stages and which is reflected in this old report. The MCS (Mobility Capability Study) and various other political moves of that period made retiring any C-5As impossible. Once the C-5A was taken off the table as a RERP candidate, almost everything changed. And the actual outcome of RERP proved the re-engine to be a success
So other than getting essentially all the facts wrong, nice rebuttal.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To begin with: "Aggressive pricing" is another word for "underestimated costs and time". And the costs are not all on Boeing, as Boeing does not pay for unplanned life extensions for inventory tankers. And this is a serious business, so dismissing such a comment with a blase "shoulda coulda woulda" is a mite sophomorish.
And, clearly, C-5M and KC-46 have one important common feature: underestimated cost and time. The A models had been flying for 30 years and their condition should not have been a mystery; if there were internal issues that might not be found until teardown, margin should be included. We've been finding nasties in old airplanes for decades.
There was one difference: the KC-46 bid was low in order to win, and the C-5M bid was low in order to get the program started.
As for the so-called nonconforming Airbus bid...
Since the two rival tankers had already satisfied 372 mandatory performance requirements, price determined the outcome and Boeing emerged victorious.
And that's according to Boeing's own consultant.
And, clearly, C-5M and KC-46 have one important common feature: underestimated cost and time. The A models had been flying for 30 years and their condition should not have been a mystery; if there were internal issues that might not be found until teardown, margin should be included. We've been finding nasties in old airplanes for decades.
There was one difference: the KC-46 bid was low in order to win, and the C-5M bid was low in order to get the program started.
As for the so-called nonconforming Airbus bid...
Since the two rival tankers had already satisfied 372 mandatory performance requirements, price determined the outcome and Boeing emerged victorious.
And that's according to Boeing's own consultant.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
And Airbus succeeded in suckering Boeing into making such an aggressive bid
And of course they would have had no signs or idea about the Airbus bid. Allegedly.....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And "unplanned life extensions for inventory tankers"? You actually think that USAF is going to invest millions to extend the life of existing tankers because the KC-46 is late? Let's talk abut "sophomorish" some more.
The B-52 is undergoing something similar right now. Having made the decision to retire B-1 and B-2 and keep B-52 flying, USAF has sent one B-52 to the San Antonio depot to figure out what it's going to take to keep the fleet going. More decisions, including the re-engining, will be made based on the data gathered there.
And about that "Boeing consultant"? He predicted, literally days before the award, that EADS (now Airbus) would surely win the award. He was dead wrong. He still is.
Last edited by KenV; 26th Mar 2018 at 15:28.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But here's the thing. The KC-46 has not failed and almost certainly will not fail, although, yes, it will be late. Maybe a year or more late. But was the risk of late deliveries and development cost over runs worth it? Almost certainly yes. You guys are thinking short term. Boeing is thinking long term. Does anyone seriously doubt that Boeing will be unable to generate some profit from this venture, low bid and all? REALLY??!!
And finally, comparing KC-46 to the proposed B-52 re-engine project is classic butwhataboutery run amok. You may as well compare Edison's choice of DC powerplants with Apple's choice of smartphone feature sets.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But here's the thing. The KC-46 has not failed and almost certainly will not fail, although, yes, it will be late. Maybe a year or more late. But was the risk of late deliveries and development cost over runs worth it? Almost certainly yes. You guys are thinking short term. Boeing is thinking long term. Does anyone seriously doubt that Boeing will be unable to generate some profit from this venture, low bid and all? REALLY??!!
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But was the risk of late deliveries and development cost over runs worth it? Almost certainly yes.
Most likely you're right, if you're Boeing. The customer may have a different perspective. And is there any reason why the same won't apply to B-52RE, a few years down the road? Because we know where the guy who set up the KC-46 deal is sitting today, do we not?
And of course that consultant still cashes Boeing checks. And of course (it's your MO) you're deflecting my question about your assertion that EADS submitted a grossly noncompliant bid. How about some evidence for that?
Most likely you're right, if you're Boeing. The customer may have a different perspective. And is there any reason why the same won't apply to B-52RE, a few years down the road? Because we know where the guy who set up the KC-46 deal is sitting today, do we not?
And of course that consultant still cashes Boeing checks. And of course (it's your MO) you're deflecting my question about your assertion that EADS submitted a grossly noncompliant bid. How about some evidence for that?
Last edited by George K Lee; 23rd Mar 2018 at 00:54.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn, the USAF is really cracking down on Boeing's personnel management...
L'US Air Force ne veut plus de retards pour ses KC-46A - Air&Cosmos
I thought we were supposed to call them "specially gifted program managers" now?
L'US Air Force ne veut plus de retards pour ses KC-46A - Air&Cosmos
I thought we were supposed to call them "specially gifted program managers" now?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
KenV, my comment was in responsible to the remark about Airbus “suckering” Boeing into pitching their bid where they did. Now you are saying it was a good long term commercial decision.
Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. The6bwere either suckered is they weren’t. My point was tha5 they weren’t.
Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. The6bwere either suckered is they weren’t. My point was tha5 they weren’t.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You appear to have a fixation on Loren Thompson being a "Boeing Consultant". He is not. Yes Boeing pays the Lexington Institute, but the Lexington Institute is a lobbying firm who's mission is to "inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology." Yes, they do influence Congress to support a wide range of defense and technology programs, which is clearly in Boeing's interest. But no, they have zero influence on specific defense programs, and no special insights into what and how EADS/Airbus (or any other contractor) is bidding.
And of course (it's your MO) you're deflecting my question about your assertion that EADS submitted a grossly noncompliant bid. How about some evidence for that?
Last edited by KenV; 26th Mar 2018 at 16:22.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV, my comment was in responsible to the remark about Airbus “suckering” Boeing into pitching their bid where they did. Now you are saying it was a good long term commercial decision.
Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. The6bwere either suckered is they weren’t. My point was tha5 they weren’t.
Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. The6bwere either suckered is they weren’t. My point was tha5 they weren’t.
Last edited by KenV; 26th Mar 2018 at 15:58.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"at any price"...
Not sure about that Ken - costs them cash, reputation and diversion of men, materials and management I'm sure they'd be better off using elsewhere - such as on the 757/767 replacement
Not sure about that Ken - costs them cash, reputation and diversion of men, materials and management I'm sure they'd be better off using elsewhere - such as on the 757/767 replacement