Everything after that is a battle of pro’s and cons for and against the product made (In Boeings case product hypothesised). It is only done to win a contract to line some hip pockets… thought about troops is not even bought into the equation.

Individual employees may feel that way but as far as the company goes, their loyalty lies with the stockholders and not the troops. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that is clueless.

No Boeing is fighting to get the troops the right tanker, the won that was chese when they had a role in its selection.

Once 787 productions ramps up the 767 is all-but irrelavant the Boeings bottom line.

Everyone was made to believe that the KC-X selection was “fair & transparent”. Once Boeing received is breifing on the selection it became clear that it was not, thus protested & the GAO agreed.

Funny how adhearing with the GAO ruling & reinstating laws which wrre waived favors Boeing.

Boeing will cry as always after the meeting that KC-767 meet minimum requirement. I even doubt that. 2,000 pounds in additional weight is gained easily with stronger armor protection.

Nobody is desputing the operating costs for an individual KC-30 sitting beside a KC-767 are bigger. But this is with reason. It takes more unit energy to move more unit mass.

Simply put, the bigger you get however, the more ‘efficient’ you get, the Aircraft dosn’t need exta oleo’s, extra cockpits, extra wings etc etc. A 747, costs more to operate than a 737, for obvious reasons. Though it can perform the same operation as a 737 at much lower cost overall.

Now several very senior members in teh USAF have explicity said that the KC-10 was in much more demand than the 135 for the Balkans and OIF as well. Unfortunately, If Australian thought the smaller size was optimal for it’s pacific operations, then it wouldn’t have Chosen the KC-30, period. And that says a lot because they have a hell of a lot of space to cover with a very limited (comparitevely) budget, and their own aquisition process.

The USAF obviously found this a correct assumption as well, because the GAO overrulled Boeings protest in this regard.

your old numbers about “LAST 4 WARTIME OPERATIONS!” tells us nothing because these numbers involve KC-135 limitations and faulty tanker logistics. You can’t deduce from these figures a bigger tanker won’t provide more.

pfcem: “Why the hell do you think the KC-X had a 7000′ runway requirement?”

To operate from more bases as a cargo lifter. Where do you have your big fuel depots with only a 7000 feet runway?

KC-45 can replace C-17 on daily missions from CONUS to Europe. A B767 can’t use most common ULD like LD3 or LD11.

pfcem “When it/they had a say in the choice, it/they chose the KC-767 (in fact it/they flat REJECTED the KC-330 because it failed to meet their needs/requirememnts & IT WAS OBVIOUS).”

In fact Boeing rewrote the specification for the first proposal.
“Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted“
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html

pfcem “The 2nd time the USAF was FORCED by Congress to conduct a competition which FORCED it to alter its criteria …”

Some proof for that except Boeing said so?

GAO claimed Air Force can’t determine that the Northrop Grumman offer could refuel all aircrafts of Air Force. How can Air Force determine that a not existing aircraft could?

Do you know Vmax for Italian KC-767A (without a “T”)?

Boeing throughout the first selection process claimed that it was fair and open competition until they LOST.

What House bills is being tailored to help Boeing win. If you do not know that you really DUMB.

First of all it is pfcem as in P F C E M, not Pcern.

The operating costs of the KC-767AT are LOWER than the KC-30. The KC-X is a TANKER that will sometimes be used as a transport to supplement the C-17 & other airlift assets. The USAF has not even provided the analysis to support its requirement for a passenger & cargo capability in the KC-X competition (although nobody doubts the benefits of it — the “question” is whether greater passenger & cargo capability is worth having a tanker which is a less capable/less efficient/more expensive tanker) much less HOW much passenger & cargo capability. Look at it this way, when the KC-X is used as an airlift asset, most of THAT time (which will be a small % of the sorties it flys) it will be used to transport 463L pallets with passengers being the next most “common” cargo. Now the C-17 is by no means lacking in passenger & cargo capability & it IS a dedicated “heavy” airlift assest. The KC-767AT pallet capacity is equal to 1 C-17 and its passenger & patient capacity is equal to 2 C-17. What makes you think that a TANKER needs (or even should) have more airlift capacity than 1–2 C-17? Note how having the KC-767AT aids in airlift planning. Simply plan loads for C-17s & whalla you have loads that nicely fit in to a C-17 OR a KC-767AT. And agian, the KC-X is a MEDIUM INTRA-THEATER TANKER 1st & an airlift asset 2nd. And when it come time to suppliment & replace the large inter-theater KC-10, you can get a tanker which matches or exceed the C-5.

YOU DON’T NEED THE KC-30’s CAPACITY FOR WARTIME OPERATIONS!

Average fuel offload per sortie.
Operation Desert Storm: 47,500 lbs
Operation Allied Force: 48,700 lbs
Operation Enduring Freedom: 75,400 lbs
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 60,800 lbs

THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE LAST 4 WARTIME OPERATIONS!

Sorry but fewer bases in the Pacific threater makes having more tankers at each base THAT much more important. And the US has operatated in the Pacific for DECADES using KC-135s (& to a lesser extent KC-10s). Having KC-767AT is by no means a hindrance to Pacific theater operations.

Sorry but the KC-30 is only more efficient than the KC-767AT when it DELIVERS significanlty more than the KC-767AT. The problem is that the times that the KC-X will deliver more than the KC-767AT can will be rare (& those times when it is, then a large inter-theater KC-10 like tanker is the way to go), the VAST majority of the time, the full capacity of the KC-767AT will not even be required much less that of the KC-30.

No the KC-10s HAVE NOT been the highest demand for operations. Since having them the US has learned that there are missions which it is better suited that the KC-135 for & there are missions that the KC-135 is better suited for. During a major WARTIME air campaign, the KC-135 mission are in MUCH higher demand than KC-10 missions.

BS, THE USAF VERY MUCH DOES DESIRE TO OPERATE AS MANY TANKERS AS CLOSE TO THE FRONT AS IT CAN IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY & CAPABILITY. Why the hell do you think the KC-X had a 7000′ runway requirement? If the KC-X was only to operate from large bases far from the front, then 10,000′ would be MORE than sufficient. NO matter what the base size or distance from the front, you can operate MORE KC-767AT than KC-30 & MOST of the time the critical factor in meeting the fuel delivery demands is the number of booms you have NOT how much fuel each tanker can transfer.

Yes, the USAF (more specifically the tanker Generals & crew) is best qualified to make the decisions it needs to get the right plane. When it/they had a say in the choice, it/they chose the KC-767 (in fact it/they flat REJECTED the KC-330 because it failed to meet their needs/requirememnts & IT WAS OBVIOUS). The 2nd time the USAF was FORCED by Congress to conduct a competition which FORCED it to alter its criteria JUST SO THAT EADS WOULD COMPETE WITH THE OTHERWISE NONCOMPETATIVE KC-30 & stopped listening to the tanker Generals & crew because they still say the KC-30 in a nonstarter. No in the 3rd round, the USAF has, in effect, been taken out of the decision process & the SAME DOD individuals who failed in their (greater than usual) role of overseeing the competition/selection are the ones in TOTAL control of the process.

Were the hell do you get that Boeing wanted to do a complete –re-compete instead of just changing sticking points in the RFP? What Boeing wanted was for the USAF to conduct its selection process fairly & assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation rules & criteria identified in the solicitation.

What House bills are trying to tailor the decision to a certain plane?

For one the Twin hose and boom layout, would essentially mean that if the USAF opts for the probe system on the F-35 (as it should) and boom to do the existing fleet of bombers and fast jets, then the USAF will be flying around with a bunch of fighters it needs to convert back to boom, or can’t refuel at all.

This is the problem with House bills trying to taylor the decision to a certain plane.

I hope I made it pertinent, the much lower operating cost of the KC-30, compared to the C-17, yet the much greater cargo capacity. Thats a cost offset.

But the USAF is not a commercial organisation, and it is very much a global entity. Sure you may not need the full fuel offload for peace time training — but on that rational, aircraft would all be flying around wearing buddy packs like the Navy. You train for war.

If you end up for example committed in the Pacific, then your stuffed. You no longer have the bases available to you, and you need a very large fleet to support a deployment, witness to this is the Black Buck Raids…

But even if you reduced the amount of fuel to the Maximum the 767 could carry the KC-30 is still a very capable airframe, and does not loose it’s efficiency. There is no ‘optimum load’ in peacetime. The USAF’s operation have been solidly taylored to what was, when it was first produced, a world beater. Ever since the Extender was bought into service, they have been in by far the highest demand for operations.

But this is really a pretty pointless discussion on being based ‘close to the front’. Tanker operations typically are not, when is possible. Further, and very importantly to this, is whilst military airfields can supply the needs of a tanker fleet in peacetime, they can’t support the needs adequately of a tanker fleet, and combat fleet sharing the same space, and hence, Aerial refuelling operations benifit greatly from basing at domestic & international hubs, where there is an existent logistics train to supply the fuel — or at least much greater capacity to continuously do such large pumping operations consistently without running out of fuel.

There are other concerns with basing tankers at combat airfields, that involve risk or targetting & attack. ‘Spot size’ is relevant to the navy, but if you cram a lot of tankers full up with fuel on the tarmac in a country where the populace doesn’t want you there, all it needs is a mortar hit to destroy the entire tarmac.

There are so many arguments too and fro. Really the USAF is best qualified to make the decisions it needs to get the right plane for it’s needs. Rest assured, they have looked at this very issue.

No, the warfigher cares that he/she has the RIGHT equipment 90% of the time (not 90% peace time 90% ALL THE TIME war & peace) rather than equipment that isn’t any better & actually worse 90% but a bit better at doing things which are not even the primary purpose of the equipment. The KC-X is to REPLACE the KC-135, not the KC-10 & not the C-17. Yes the KC-X will SUPPLIMENT the KC-10 & C-17 at the jobs they do but the VAST MAJORITY of the time it will do the jobs the KC-135 does.

Boeing cares about the warfighter, that is why it is fighting so hard to get them the RIGHT tanker, the one they chose when they were involded in making the choice & the one most even TODAY say is the one they want & need.

You cannot generalize future aerial refueling needs based on lower average past offloads using the more plentiful, but less capable KC-135R.

In addition, you should assume that the KC-X will be used extensively as an airlifter to save C-17 and C-5 hours. Even in combat, I can envision the KC-X carrying 463L pallets from the states, flying to Hawaii, and then accompanying fighters to mainland (or island) Asia carrying both fuel and pallets. After all, if you are going to fly midway there to fly an anchorpoint orbit, it is just as far to return to Hawaii as to fly onward to Asia…so why not carry pallets in the process?

And the great thing is that the KC-30 can carry a substantial 40,000+ pound pallet load while matching the KC-767’s 200K lbs of fuel.…

BTW, don’t count me as a Boeing hater. They make great military and civil products, but in this case, they are just outperformed. A split buy should still be considered…if not by the D0D, then by Congress ala the F-35 second engine. That second engine, I read, may cost the DoD an additional $ 3.6 billion. Frankly, can’t imagine it adding any more than that to the lifetime $100 billion acquisition cost of the KC-X if KC-Y/KC_Z is abandoned and the program is accelerated from 15 to 25 aircraft a year in a 60/40 split buy.

The warfighter cares, even if Boeing could care less about them. That 10% is what this combat system is all about, not your casual 90% peacetime, commercial, delay wracked Boeing schedule.

With the shame and anger Boeing has collected during this acquisition attempt they may as well just shutdown their defense operations and focus on delivering their commercial products on time for a change.

Today’s Non-Ethics Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

Sorry but you are trying to fit the mission around the KC-X when the KC-X should fit the mission. THE MOST IMPORTANT & MOST OFTEN CONDUCTED MISSION is ferueling fighters & other attack aircraft at (preferrably) the shortest distances possible (so as to not waste fuel flying tankers to the refueling points).

ABSOLUTELY there are lots of factors that go into refueling, and it’s not as simple as one cost factor over another. That is what I have been saying the whole time & when you look at all (or most) of the factors, the KC-30 simply is the WRONG tanker for the USAF. It is BIGGER than the KC-10 but does not have the fuel capacity of the KC-10 & is SO big that its size & weight outweigh its greater capacity compared to the KC-767AT.

One of the biggest problems all these EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have is that all they look at is the MAXIMUM of what the KC-30 can do compared to the KC-135R or KC-767AT without having the first clue about how much the KC-X will ACTUALLY carry the VAST majority of the time. Who cares if the KC-30’s greater capacity gives it an advantage 10% of the time when 90% of the time its greater capacity is not utilized & it simply burns more fuel carrying the SAME DELIVERED PAYLOAD as a KC-135R or KC-767AT. THAT is the biggest Red Herring! The KC-X does not need to be 2–3 times the airlifter of the C-17 & the KC-X won’t be used as an airlifter THAT much (it is after all 1st & formost a tanker & is SUPPOSED to be a medium intra-theater KC-135-like tanker) & even when it is it will rarely be loaded to its full capacity.

C-5’s C-17’s or 747’s are not expected to operate from smaller airfields closer to the from (well the C-17 is compared to the C-5 & 747), that is why we have smaller aircraft like C-135s, C-130s, C-27 et cetera.

The KC-30 costs more in peacetime & wartime! It costs more to improve the existing infrastructure in order for it to do the job of the KC-135R, it costs more to operate & maintain & the VAST MAJORITY of the time it won’t do more than a KC-767AT.

I agree that it was unwise for the U.S Government have to systematically allowed Boeing to buy out other large aircraft manufacturers in the U.S. The U.S Government has done A LOT of unwise things to the detriment of the country.

The 767’s manufacture is already up and running & has been for considerably longer than the A330’s. The difference is that since Boeing tailor made the KC-767AT for the KC-X it has to integrate parts (ALL of which are already FAA certificed & flying on various 767 varients) while NG/EADS have to RECREATE a significant portion of the process in the US. Both of which have risks but neither of which are risks that have not been done before.

And actually, if one is to pick fault with the KC-767, one must apply the same standards to the KC-30.

I agree that making satements based ONLY on protectionism is insulting as there is plenty to find fault with the KC-30 without it. One does not need to insinuate that they are producing an inferior product or that Boeing is automatically capable. BUT based on the comments made by those who actually operate &/or maintain them, in general, Boeing aircraft are of a higher quality & easier to maintain than Airbus aircraft — although even I take this with a grain of salt because in my own experience such things do at times come down to personal experience & preference.

If one is so concerned about competition only being from American Firms, why has the U.S Govt systematically allowed Boeing to buy out other large aircraft manufacturers in the U.S to the State’s own detriment.

There is little structurally different with the A-330 airframe, and when it heads to the U.S it will be fitted with refueling equipment. Advantageously for the A330 it’s manufacture is already up and running.

Whilst it is correct to say the U.S KC-45 won’t be the Same as the Australian KC-30, the differences are in internal configuration. It will have the exact same plumbing and Aerial Refueling boom, already in testing.
This boom is not functional on the A-330, pending clearance of the boom on the EADS testbed. That is to say, the aircraft with all the gizmos and gadgets to fine tune the boom. It is with ultimate reality that testing will commence on the KC-30 in well under a year to be cleared to operate with that airframe.

Boeings boom is not the same as on the Japanese 767’s which hasn’t been accepted by the JASDF yet, for whatever reason, it doesn’t really matter, if one is to pick fault with the KC-30, one must apply the same standards to the KC-767.

EADS is a very competent organisation, with highly skilled individuals. To insinuate that they are producing an inferior product or that Boeing is automatically capable of produjing a better airframe based on protectionism is insulting…

During First Gulf War the second largest European contingent was from France, with 18,000 troops.

France was right about the WMD.

The bombing of Libya was due to the Lockerbie bombing. France is not so far away from Libya like Britain. Just look up “Union for the Mediterranean”.

France isn’t an easy friend but still a friend.