Your ignorance of aircraft engineering is showing. The Middle of Market Aircaft (MMA) is still in the configuration development phase and well staffed with configuration design engineers. The KC-46 is staffed with detail design engineers. Big difference. By the time the MMA gets launched, the configuration is frozen, and the detail design engineering begins, the KC-46 effort will be finished and the engineers supporting KC-46 will be able to be moved to MMA. And BTW, much more near term than MMA is 777X detail design engineering. Currently that effort is sufficiently staffed and tracking on schedule.

Ken...

Please produce credible evidence that the EADS bid was noncompliant. If the RFP called for a freight floor and cargo door, and EADS did not offer this, that would be a matter of public record. But as far as I know, the deal came down to price.

I'm asking for linked independent evidence. This is (mostly) a forum where standards prevail.

And please don't imagine I think Thompson set up the tanker deal for Boeing. That's absurd. And, yes, Thompson is a consultant to many defense contractors, including Boeing.

"the KC-46 effort will be finished"

is that a promise???

It is a matter of public record that EADS offered the passenger version of the A330 and not the
freighter. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X).

The detailed specifications of the final RFP are not in the public domain.

Ref: "sauce for goose is sauce for gander."
On the subject of this forum being "where standards prevail", what "linked independent evidence" do you offer to:
1. Support your contention that EADS' offer was fully compliant with the RFP.
2. Support your claim that Boeing paid a consultant to "set up the tanker deal".
3. Support your charge that it is my MO to deflect

Yeah, I thought so.

A promise? Heck, if that's what you want, I'll swear to it on a stack of bibles and sign the contract in blood.

And what will that mean?

This is yet more specious butwhataboutery.

Ken...

It is a matter of public record that EADS offered the passenger version of the A330 and not the freighter.

The Wikipedia entry shows nothing of the sort. It shows no discontinuity between the EADS/NGC bid, based on the KC-30 MRTT, and the EADS solo bid. Proof or hold your peace.

And I don't have to prove anything, certainly not the negatives of your fantasies. Particularly nothing about a consultant setting up the deal, because that's not what I said.

As for your MO, recall your long and tedious ranting about how the JSF GenIV HMDS included eyeball-movement tracking, when the GenIV didn't actually exist.

Oh my. The EADS/NGC offer was for the passenger version of the A330. At that time there was no requirement for a freighter and further, the A330F did not yet exist and could not be offered. And as you yourself just stated, the final EADS solo bid was the same as that earlier team bid.

Hmmmm. You "don't have to prove anything?" So sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander? Hmmmmm.

Now about that consultant. This is what you said in post #57:

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.

Sounds to me that "that consultant" who "still cashes Boeing checks" also "set up the KC-46 deal". Or are you talking about two different people here? If so who are the two different people because that is not at all clear.

Back to that are we? I very clearly and emphatically admitted that I erred when I talked about eyeball-movement tracking because I had attributed features in the lab helmet that was demonstrated to me with features in the production helmet. Further, a SINGLE misstatement made nearly three years ago does not remotely constitute an "MO." Nor does a misstatement of this kind remotely constitute a "deflection", which was your claim. So I call total BS on your entire assertion.

And finally, you demanded "linked independent evidence." Your recollection of an exchange that happened nearly three years ago does not remotely constitute "linked independent evidence." So while demanding "linked independent evidence" from others, you exempt yourself from that requirement. So is this really a case of sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander or just plain old fashioned hypocrisy?

BTW, holding a grudge for going on three years is not healthy. You might want to consider that.

Ken...

https://news.northropgrumman.com/new...ction-criteria

https://leehamnews.com/2015/09/24/bj...anker-program/

A company source and a respected independent source, both mentioning pallet counts. So there was a cargo door and a floor. Without it, the proposal would have been rejected outright, and it was not. As for your evidence, you have presented a Wikipedia entry that doesn't mention pallets or cargo.

And then you add another completely false claim, which is that the A330F "did not yet exist and could not be offered" at the time of the EADS/Boeing contest. Source selection was in 2011. The A330F was launched in 2007, flew in 2009 and entered commercial service in 2010.

By the way, you are the one making a claim that appears to be new (that the Airbus proposal was noncompliant) so it's really up to you to prove it.

Thompson and the person who set up the deal are separate. English is not always a precise instrument, but I already explained the difference to you, and on you still bang about it.

I don't know what your game is, apart from schoolboyish trolling. And I had quite forgotten about your similar behavior from years back until you started firing insults left and right about people's "ignorance".

Oh my. First, you directly accused me of having an "MO of deflection" in post #55 dated 22 March. I suggested HH was ignorant of modern aircraft engineering in post #61, dated 26 March. If the math is difficult, that's four days later. So unless you have a time machine that enabled you to travel four days into the future, your claim that my "ignorance insult" reminded you of that single years ago event is utterly false on its face. And second, one of the sure signs of a troll is accusing others of being a troll.

Adios. I'm done with you here.

I have just read most of the above inputs and (fairly normal for PPRUNE) non relate to the subject of the post - B52 replacement engine.
Instead it has degenerated to childish personal insults.
The mods really ought to remove these should they not???

I agree to a point... I think the discussion turned on the relative difficulty of B-52RE versus other programs & Boeing's performance on things that should have been straightforward.

I spent many years in a field where you could very easily find yourself being spanked severely for making unsourced claims and such behavior on a reputable forum consequently :mad:es me off.

So, let the discussion resume, about the myriad ways in which the apparently sensible idea of putting new motors on the B-52 can get gooned up.

I made the exact same point multiple times and attempted multiple times to steer the conversation back to the topic. I failed. Certain folks here just cannot resist the opportunity to slag Mr B and mock USAF even if its totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

Given the issues reported by the three major engine providers right now it is a brave man who'd belie any promises TBH....

One the other hand fuel efficiency since 1960 has increased by about 60% - of which engine improvements have provided about 40% whilst aerodynamics and airframe materials has provided about 20%. And from what I read that trend is ongoing - so I’d extend the engine manufacturers some slack.

Having dealt with all three on a regular basis (prior to my retirement), we had a saying:
"The worst engine manufacturer in the world is the one you're dealing with today"
That being said, based on the last ten years, I'd say GE is less likely to screw the pooch than the other two.
ORAC, it's not just fuel efficiency - the maintenance/reliability/shutdown rates/time on wing have all gotten much, much better.

There are certainly a number of suitable engines, and with luck, military requirements will not require too many modifications (= cost and risk). I would just hope that the REP would include an early demonstrator with a pair of new engines in an installation that traces directly to production.

The engine change decision has VERY little to do with promises from engine manufacturers. The point is that the current engines will be non supportable in less than a decade, and the plans are to keep the airframes going for another two or three decades. Without new engines the airframes will simply stop flying long before the airframe life has been reached.

It is HOPED that the engine change will pay for itself in operating savings, but this is not what is driving the decision. And the savings include reduced fuel burn AND reduced maintenance. For example, it is estimated that on average the new engines will require at most one removal during the remaining life of the airframe. And a significant number of engines will likely NEVER require an engine removal during the life of the airframe. Yes, the new engines are that much more reliable/durable.

Current plans (which are very much still in flux) are to replace all 8 engines on a single "pathfinder" airframe that will also do a lot of flight testing to ensure the flight envelope (and more importantly, the weapons release envelope) is not affected by the new engines and engine installation. Swapping out only a single pair of engines will not enable the level of testing that is needed.

Does this mean that the E3 (TF33) engines will also become unsupportable?

Good point, k3k3, since the TF33-AWACS in USAF and NATO is supposed to run to 2035. And AWACS has tended to run at higher utilization rates then the B-52.