Home » Air » Bias In New Tanker Bid: Boeing Supporter

Bias In New Tanker Bid: Boeing Supporter

By Colin Clark Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 12:56 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

A congressional source supportive of Boeing’s bid says there are “indications of bias” in the amended bid for the Pentagon’s $35 billion tanker program.

The source points to language in the new RFP that “appears to justify bigger aircraft with greater fuel offload capability.” The congressional source says that “current (real world) scenarios demonstrate that typical sorties involve offloading 65,000 to 70,000 pounds of fuel” and the KC-767 can hold about 205,000 pounds, compared to the Northrop Grumman plane’s 250,000 pounds.

The source notes that amended RFP includes language that “there is additional value to the Government for the additional fuel offload amount above threshold.”

I’ve got calls and emails out for more reaction and should hear some soon.

Join the Conversation

	LC August 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm The Air Force is in a no win situation. If Boeing loses again, they’ll start up the anti-NG/EADS propoganda machine and have their cronies on the Hill hold things up again. I am not anti-Boeing by any means but I do want my Air Force and nation to get the best weapon system. If Boeing is chosen so be it but their tactics offend me.
	Mr. X. August 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm I just hope this gets resolved SOON, I’m a KC-135 pilot and let me tell you if we get these planes today they will be 10 years late. While I love my bird, to say we should’ve had a replacement years ago would be an under statement. I’m as pro American as they come, but Boeing clearly lost this proposal, the Northrop plane blows it out of the water. Congress should not tell the Air Force what it should buy, and it should not force them to buy “American Only”. nd let me share something the Boeing plane has crucial parts contracted overseas not just for their Tanker, but also their commercial aircraft as well. Are we telling Congress to buy Chevys and not buy Volvos? Like I said i’m a red blooded American but I drive a BMW, and with any luck I’ll be trading my Boeing Tanker for a Northrop/EADS Tanker.
	mojojojo August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm They offend me too. The so called “bias” is known as an objective requirement. Large scale contracts will often have threshold and corresponding objective requirements that have the same language but with more/bigger/better for the objective. Now.…here’s the important part.… THE US GOVERNMENT IS SPECIFYING THEIR DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO OFFLOAD MORE FUEL.… If Boeing is worried this will prevent them from winning the contract…then they need to change their proposal.
	Old391 August 7th, 2008 at 4:20 am Gee the Air Force actually made a decision all by them selves and what happens, Boeing goes crying to it representatives from Washington and Kansas to get them to change the rules to they will win. I feel sorry for the troops
	Bobbe Houston August 7th, 2008 at 4:52 am If Air Force already fixed the price for the tanker…this is an essential element of a contractand Northtrop could sue the Air Force for abreach of a contract. In Contract law the price is considered by the courts as an important part of an implied contract.
	Brownshoe August 7th, 2008 at 5:28 am I think many people are missing one of Boeing’s key arguments, which I agree with. First, I must say that I’m a Boeing employee although I do not work on the Tanker program. I’m also a reserve aerospace maintenance & acquisition officer (I’m actually recalled to active duty right now). While I agree that NG’s tanker is more capable than Boeing’s, I firmly believe that the sustainment cost for that aircraft over time will be much higher that Boeing’s. The sustainment’s costs of any aircraft are far more money than the aircraft themselves, so in this case, I believe the 767 is a better buy for the Air Force in the long term.
	daskro August 7th, 2008 at 7:20 am Bobbe Houston — What contract, no one has won anything yet.
	Cole August 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am In line with what some Representatives and their aids are saying, is pfcem’s claim from another older thread: “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!“ —————————————– A Rand “Multipoint Aerial Refueling” study from 1996 listed the tanker sorties from the air tasking order of Day 32 during the first Gulf War. The following information is from flights actually flown that day, listed in the study (4.7 mB): http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/2007/DB152.pdf - 21 of 214 sorties could have been combined using existing aerial refuelers sorties if automated planning tools had been available. Many others could have been combined if KC-135s would have had greater fuel offload reserves. - On one track “D”, no fewer than 12 KC-135 offloaded nearly all available fuel on board and had 0–5,000 lbs remaining above fuel required to return to base. - 30 of 31 KC-10 missions offloaded 99,000 lbs or more (one appeared to have a malfunction offloading just 20K), compared to only 17 KC-135Rs offloading that much…despite the fact that the KC aircraft flew 197 of the sorties. Planners found ways to better utilize the greater offload of the KC-10, even without automated planning tools of yesteryear. - In every mission listed, the KC-30 could have offloaded the same fuel as the KC-10. There were multiple missions where the KC-135R could not have offloaded what the KC-10 did. - Single KC-10 aircraft often supported refueling of 12–16 fighter aircraft. Most KC-135 sorties supported 8 or less. - Single KC-10 supported 5 B-52G refuelings with 150–210,000 lbs. On the same track, 10 of the 12 KC-135R offloaded 70–99,000 lbs, with two managing 140,000 lbs…but having no additional fuel to offload afterwords. It is clear that AVERAGE historical offloads in past conflicts are a function of lesser, but far more plentiful KC-135 sorties. It is equally obvious from the few KC-10 sorties that did fly, that far more capable KC-X aircraft would enable the USAF to offload more fuel per sortie…and more fuel overall as required. That day in Desert Storm, they offloaded 17 million pounds which far exceeds today’s typical day of just 2–3 million pounds. When we need extra capacity for surges, the air bridge, and for bombers, and multiple fighter refuelings at an anchorpoint, we will be glad it is there.
	Michael Chadwick August 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am Mr. X, While I repect your opinion, choice of automobile, AND your service to our country, you are missing a couple of very imprtant facts. First, Beoing did not lose based on it’s proposal, it lost because the Air Force didn’t follow their own rules. That fact was clearly establish by the GAO finding where it states; ‘Boeing had a substantial chance of being chosen’. Second, I hardly thing one can compare the propsed KC767 and KC30 as ‘Chevys and Volvos’. Both aircraft are state of the art with advantages and disadvantages.
	Mr. X August 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Thank you Sir, When I made the comment about “chevy & volvos” I was reffering to congress and their personal automobiles, On the contrary I feel the Boeing Tanker is a fine aircraft, I (and many others ) just happen to feel that the Northrop Tanker is better, If I had to make a comparison I would say the Boeing Tanker is a Aston Martin and the Northrop tanker is a Maserati :) Would you turn any of those two down? I would just go with the Maserati.
	pfcem August 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Cole, I LOVE USING PEOPLE’S OWN SOURCES AGAINST THEM. :) DB152.pdf [page numbers provided so that text can be put into context] page 11–12 Gulf War (ODS) D+32 tanker sorties surged 30% above the levels of the previous several weeks. Analysis indicated that of 214 tanker sorties flown that day, only 21 could have been accomplished by combining fighter packages behind fewer tankers. [could have combined 21 of 214 sorties = total savings of 10–11 sorties — a wopping 5%] page 23–24 Boom method provides the highest fuel transfer rates, which is an important factor in determining the relative effectiveness of the system. Less training on the part of the pilot is needed. The USAF take the position that boom/receptacle ofers the greatest safety & reliability. page 26 The actual availability of the KC-10 to the Navy is considered by many to be an uncertain proposition, because the KC-10 is a very efficient hauler of bulk cargo. [aka having a tanker with such good airlift capability/capacity RISKS them being used for airlift when they are needed as tankers] page 32 When fighters are the receiver aircraft, they usually limit the overall fuel transfer rate, since tankers generally have more capacity to pump fuel than the fighters have to accept it. page 35 A planning factor of 1,000 pounds per minute [~149 gal/min] of fuel per offload point was used. This rate was intended to be an overall transfer rate that took into account not only the actual transfer of fuel but also the additional time for positioning & hook-up. [man it must take a LONG time to position & hook up for overall fuel transfer rate to be just ~149 gal/min — not this number is propably rather low in order to make multipoint look better by seriously restricting how quickly the boob/receiver method is] page 37 F-15: 3,400 ppm [~507 gal/min] F-16: 2,600 ppm [~388 gal/min] [~507 gal/min & ~388 gal/min = ZERO advantage for 1200 gal/min when refueling F-15’s &/or F-16’s] In general multipoint tankers have an advantage over single boom equipped tankers. Unfortunately, however, not twice as fast & not with 50% fewer tankers, but closer to 20–30% and only after system maturity has been achieved. page 38 KC-135 ofload rate: 6,000 pmm [~896 gal/min] with boom & 2,560 [~382 gal/min] with drogue page 39 Single-point was boom-limited, using up all the available corridor time& leaving fuel in the tankers. page 46 …85% of the tankers transfered less than 50% of their available fuel The remaining fuel was returned to base or, when necessary, dumped. These facts are evident that a boom-limited environment was the norm.
	SandyBeach August 8th, 2008 at 4:31 am maybe throw in a 777 for good measure if size and load are the main contrbuting factors. I have flown 767, Airbus A-330 and 777 aircraft many times to and from Latin America, 777 would be my choice, impressive is the way to best describe it, big in room, volume, and power (engines on a 777 far exceed the other 2), let the other 2 RIP.….….….
	BS_Buster August 8th, 2008 at 4:48 am Re: “‘Chevys and Volvos’. Both aircraft are state of the art…”, “Aston Martin and Maserati” Good debate guys, however, one must add in that the 767 is a 1990 model while the 330 is a 2000 year model, It is a real stretch calling the 767, “state of the art” especially considering that according to the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium they have 80 year old KC-135 experienced people working on their planes? Today’s 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
	mojojojo August 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am Dang Cole…all that to just say Not Enough Fuel? Now point that basketball sized brain towards solving the MPLCC and we can stick a fork in this discussion.
	pfcem August 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am BS_Buster, So which is it? The KC-767AT is a 1990 model or a paper airplane that hasn’t even flown yet… Exactly what is it that is not “state of the art” about the KC-767AT. Besides of coarse that it is not a 787. ;) Here is a little task for you. Check out the P-8A Poseidon (2nd airframe now in final assembly) — different parts from various 737 varients plus some all-new mission specific stuff. And this on a platform which by the thinking of people like you is even OLDER (1st flight in 1967) than the 767 yet is STILL the top selling airliner year after year…Now tell us how the KC-767AT (different parts from various 767 varients plus some all-new mission specific stuff) is a problem/risk.
	Cole August 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am pfcem “uses my own reference against me”: “page 11–12 Gulf War (ODS) D+32 tanker sorties surged 30% above the levels of the previous several weeks. Analysis indicated that of 214 tanker sorties flown that day, only 21 could have been accomplished by combining fighter packages behind fewer tankers. [could have combined 21 of 214 sorties = total savings of 10–11 sorties — a wopping 5%]“ ————————————— Excuse the late response, but between home computer hardware problems and being away on a vacation time 3-day weekend, I missed pfcem’s latest gem. That is 21 (10%) SAVED sorties by combining the 21 with some of the other 193 sorties. How did that evolve to “10–11 sorties” that you used to claim “a whopping 5%”?? In addition, as Mojojo points out elsewhere, more than 70 sorties coded as NEF (not enough fuel) prevented other sortie combining. And that is exclusive of other sorties listed as both NEF/“NSE” (not soon enough) where RAND required the “aerial-refueling control time” for different missions to be within a half hour of each other for sorties to be combined…which frankly may be too tight a time constraint. Between the 21 combined missions RAND identified, and the 70 NEF sorties, that is 91 out of 214 sorties that conceivably could have been combined. Add more if you allowed “NSE” tankers to orbit longer than a half hour (especially for distant tracks/anchors) and you might approach nearly HALF the 214 sorties that could have been combined given a KC-X tanker with substantially greater fuel capacity. Most other pages pfcem cited were distractions irrelevant to this discussion.
	Cole August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am pfcemism: “page 46 …85% of the tankers transfered less than 50% of their available fuel. The remaining fuel was returned to base or, when necessary, dumped. These facts are evident that a boom-limited environment was the norm“ ————————————- Sure hope we don’t dump fuel anymore…and won’t need to since so few KC-135R could be refueled in flight, while all KC-X can be. So 85% transferred only half their fuel, eh? If we have 85% of 100 KC-30s (85 sorties)transferring 75,000 lbs of their 150,000 lbs available, and the remaining 15% (15 sorties) are transferring an average of 100,000 lbs, that appears to be a total offload of 7,875,000 lbs…or an average offload of 78,750 lbs for the 100 sorties. If 85% of 100 KC-767 sorties transfer half their 122,000 lbs…just 61,000 lbs…and the other 15 sorties offload 82,000 lbs, that is a total offload of 6,415,000 lbs…or an average offload of 64,150 lbs. But wait, what if the missions require 7,800,000 lbs of fuel that day? That means the KC-767 must come up with another 1,385,000 lbs or 22 more aircraft at their lower average load. Would you rather have an aircraft that allows you to support the day’s missions with 100 KC-30 aircraft…or 122 KC-767? When you add “fuel burned” to that equation, it is essentially a wash. If you can get by with purchasing fewer KC-30 aircraft or divert the same number to many other missions…the acquisition dollar’s worth of KC-30s is anything but a wash. It all comes down to automated planning to match the right number of receiver aircraft to the right aerial refueling assets.
	pfcem August 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm Cole, Ok I read that wrong, I thought it said just 21 could be joined. So it is a wopping 9.8% (still not very significant). But still that is talking about what could have been done if EVERY aircraft was the USN style drogue receivers (which isn’t going to happen) & as other studies show the benefit is NOT as great as the Rand study indicated. And of course, if the KC-135R could have operated with a full load of fuel from bases closer to the refuel point many of those would have had enough fuel. But the biggest problem is that is say NOTHING about the KC-767AT vs KC-30. Also not that is an analysis of ONE DAY. So you think the fact that boom/receptacle ofers greater fuel transfer rates & the greatest safety & reliability is a distraction? So you think the fact that the actual availability of the KC-10 to the Navy is considered by many to be an uncertain proposition, because the KC-10 is a very efficient hauler of bulk cargo is a distraction? So you think the fact that the sudy figured for positioning & hook-up took SO much time to that it used an overall transfer rate of just 1,000 pounds per minute [~149 gal/min] is a distraction? So you think the fact that the F-15 can only recieve 3,400 pounds per minute (~507 gal/min) & the F-16 only 2,600 pounds per minute (~388 gal/min) — the later GAO study indicated that in reality it is 2,880 pounds per minute (~430 gal/min) & 2,000 pounds per minute (~299 gal/min) respectively is a distraction? Fuel was only dumped where necessary. The VAST majority was still in the KC-135R tanks when the landed. It was the operational realities of how tankers actually conduct missions/sorties (not the least of which is that the number of booms needed is MUCH more inportant than haw much fuel each tanker can transfer) which lead to such low transfers per tanker. If the need was for more capacity more so than booms than the situation would be revered, tanker would unload all their fuel but there would still be receivers in need of fuel. What I (& most tanker Generals & crew) would rather have is a tanker that can operate in enough numbers from bases close to the refueling points so as to provide the number of booms needed for ALL recievers to be refueled in the most effective & efficient way. It would also be nice if said tanker did not REQUIRE billions of dollars in infrastucture improvements just to operate from airfields the KC-135R operates from (much less the additional airfields the US would like to use). Every time to bring up a sceneario where a KC-30 would unload more fuel than a KC-767AT you only prove that you have no clue of the realities of US tanker operations. Yes automated planning will improve the effeciency of aerial refueling but it will NOT reverse the fact that the number of booms needed is the limiting facter MUCH more so than the amount of fuel each tanker can offload.
	Jack August 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm pfcem writes What I (& most tanker Generals & crew) would rather have –Yet another reason this guy should not be taken serious.
	Cole August 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm More pfcemisms: ”(1)So you think the fact that boom/receptacle ofers greater fuel transfer rates & the greatest safety & reliability is a distraction? (2) So you think the fact that the actual availability of the KC-10 to the Navy is considered by many to be an uncertain proposition, because the KC-10 is a very efficient hauler of bulk cargo is a distraction? (3) So you think the fact that the sudy figured for positioning & hook-up took SO much time to that it used an overall transfer rate of just 1,000 pounds per minute [~149 gal/min] is a distraction? (4)So you think the fact that the F-15 can only recieve 3,400 pounds per minute (~507 gal/min) & the F-16 only 2,600 pounds per minute (~388 gal/min) — the later GAO study indicated that in reality it is 2,880 pounds per minute (~430 gal/min) & 2,000 pounds per minute (~299 gal/min) respectively is a distraction?“ —————————————— 1) Both KC-X have booms and pods for hose/drogue, so that is irrelevant other than it may mean fewer and larger KC-X vs. KC-135R will be required to support Navy/Marine aircraft. 2) Unbelieveable that you would bring this up. Lack of KC-10 availability due to use as an airlifter is a strong argument for: a) a larger KC-X aircraft that can also perform the airlift mission to free KC-10s/C-17s/C-5s, b) more numerous higher fuel capacity KC-X aircraft that can substitute for KC-10s in the Pacific. 3)and 4) We established that the pod and hose set-up permitting two to three Navy/Marine aircraft to refuel will accelerate that portion of the mission allowing a larger tanker to refuel more aircraft. The Desert Storm “Day 32″ example showed that 8 to 16 fighter aircraft could be refueled using a boom by one KC aircraft during a track or anchorpoint. Multiply those fighter totals by 10,000 lbs each and you are not talking the puny 50,000 lb average offload that you keep advertising as all that is required. Most of your above arguments are more relevant to debate over not making the USAF F-35A a probe refueler…but the Air Force decided to be different…so apparently it must feel that one-at-a-time using a boom will not hamper its multiple fighter operations. If it proves otherwise, at least a larger KC-X has the fuel capacity to remain on station as long as it takes to refuel all its supported fighters.
	pfcem August 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm Cole, 1) Booms are & will continue to be THE refueling method of choice for the USAF for the reasons stated. The studies the document you linked to are all about IF the USAF were to convert its entire force to drogue. 2a) No, it is a strong argument for NOT having significant airlift capability (note no analysis justifing the need [&/or how much is beneficial vs the costs] for significant airlift capability has been done) in what is to be your primary tanker in the future since having it increases the chances that you won’t have enough tankers because they are being utilized as airlift assets. Besides, the KC-767AT can (when not needed for aerial refueling) perform the airlift mission to free KC-10s/C-17s/C-5s (with capacity equal to 1–2 C-17) & (unlike the KC-30) not sacrifice its PRIMARY mission of a medium intra-theater KC-135 replacement tanker. 2b) No, the KC-X will not (unless they through the curtent medium intra-theater tanker idea out & decide to go directly to a large inter-theater KC-10 suppliment/replacement tanker 1st) SUBSTITUTE for KC-10s in the Pacific. Supplement — yes, substitute — no. Besides the KC-767AT is perfectly capable of doing so, the KC-135 has been for DECADES (including before we even had any KC-10s) — the difference is that the KC-135 & KC-767AT are more oriented towards the MUCH more common medium intra-theater tanker missions/sorties. 3 & 4) You just don’t get it. Reguardles of whether you use boom or drogue MORE TIME IS COMMONLY SPENT POSITIONING & HOOK-UP THAN ACTUALLY REFUELING (in fact is is because of this that multipoint even looks as good as it does). And with REAL WORLD refueling rates being 2,880 pounds per minute (~430 gal/min) for the F-15 & 2,000 pounds per minute (~299 gal/min) for the F-16, having the ability to pump 1,200 gal/min (8,040 pounds per minute) vs 900‑1000 gal/min (6,030–6,700 pounds per minute) is of ZERO VALUE the vast majority of the time (as I have said before there are very few platforms which can receive fuel at >900‑1000 gal/min but they do not represent the majority of the missions/sorties that tanker do). You don’t need a larger tanker. The average fuel offload for fighters is less than 10,000 lbs (ferry missions are NOT the most common missions). I NEVER said 50,000 lbs average offload was all that was required (but it is just like you to make up such ridiculus stuff). When 85% of the tankers transfered less than 50% of their AVAILABLE fuel (automated planning will no doubt improve those numbers significantly) you have a LONG way to go before needing a larger tanker… Also note that with each study, which more accurately represented actual refueling rates & times, the miltipoint advantage lessened & is only really advantageous for one of the two common refueling methods. The article provides more to dispel the myth that the larger KC-30 is better than the KC-767AT than it does to support such a notion.
	Chris August 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm pfcem, Do you really believe the garbage that you type? C’mon there is no way. “the KC-767AT can (when not needed for aerial refueling) perform the airlift mission to free KC-10s/C-17s/C-5s (with capacity equal to 1–2 C-17) & (unlike the KC-30) not sacrifice its PRIMARY mission of a medium intra-theater KC-135 replacement tanker” –This is a blatant lie. The KC-45,when performing an airlift mission CAN STILL PERFORM AS A TANKER. It really is sad some of the things you post, seriously for your sake I really hope you do not believe your own lies.
	Jack August 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Pfcem please read carefully (twice if need be), As the KC-45’s internal fuel capacity already is optimized for its tanker duties, no additional fuel tanks are necessary — leaving its ample underfloor cargo compartments completely free for pallets, equipment and bulk cargo.
	pfcem August 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Chris, What fantasy world do you live in? I have NEVER posted a lie, you are just blinded to reality. When not performing its PRIMARY mission as a medium intra-theater KC-135 replacement tanker, the KC-767 can airlift as many (actually one more) military standard 463L pallets or can airlift ~twice as many troops or patient litters as a C-17. That is fact in the REAL WORLD. And as I have said before NO analysis justifing more than what the KC-767AT can provide has been done But yes BOTH the KC-767AT & KC-30 can carry both cargo & offload fuel during the same flight. Once again you completely ingor what the KC-767AT can do & what the KC-X will do (requardless of which platform it ultimately is) when trumpeting the KC-30.
	Jack August 15th, 2008 at 8:13 am pfcem, you posted– (unlike the KC-30) not sacrifice its PRIMARY mission of a medium intra-theater KC-135 replacement tanker” Wich as I proved above IS A BLATANT LIE! but you being the terrible Boeing spin master you are will not admit to it right?
	pfcem August 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am Jack, Keep on drinking that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid & perpetuating the lie that a tanker that is 193′ 7″ long with a wingspan of 197′ 10″, height of 55′ 2″ & an operational empty weight greater than 265,000 lbs (aka bigger & heavier than the KC-10 but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) does not sacrifice the PRIMARY mission of a medium intra-theater KC-135 replacement tanker. ;) You have proved nothing but that you are drunk on EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.
	Jack August 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm Lol! It’s hilarious! You keep writing but you have yet to prove ANYONE wrong! Why are you bringing up the KC-10 when we are talking about the KC-45 and KC-767?????????? Sorry I don’t drink Kool Aide, I don’t know what you are drinking because we all know it’s not Kool Aide!!!!! :) Keep drinking it so you can believe all the crap Boeing feeds you
	Chris August 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm You see how pfcem attacks people who do not buy into his “PRO BOEING BS”, this guy just keeps making a fool out of himself Ironically just like the company he supports. He writes, “Keep on drinking that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid” –What are you in the 5th grade???????Seriously. tell me you did not write something like this.……Please
	pfcem August 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Jack, Thanks for demonstrating just how wholefully uninformed you are. Just what have I not demonstrated to be wrong? How can a tanker that is bigger & heavier than the KC-10 (note that a KC-10 loaded with 246,000 lbs of fuel is LIGHTER that a KC-30) be a medium tanker when the KC-10 is a large tanker? In fact the size (length & wingspan) difference between the KC-30 & KC-10 is similar to the size difference between the KC-767 & the KC-135. If you had any clue how the KC-135 & KC-10 are employed (& the reasons why they are employed the way they are) it would be abundantly clear to you why in 2002 the USAF said that the KC-30 was a nonstarter & why the USAF worked so hard to try & get the KC-767. Boeing isn’t feeding me anything, I have no contact with Boeing — I just happened to be MUCH more informed than you & becasue of that I know that the Boeing KC-767AT is the right choice for the USAF.
	Jack August 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm Pfcem writes this gem, Boeing isn’t feeding me anything, I have no contact with Boeing — I just happened to be MUCH more informed than you & becasue of that I know that the Boeing KC-767AT is the right choice for the USAF. –Great now take yor ball and go home. in 2002 the USAF said that the KC-30 was a nonstarter & why the USAF worked so hard to try & get the KC-767 –You like Boeing continue to live in the past, 2002 is over with Dude, Boeing got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are the REASON why the AirForce STILL has to fly the KC-135. The rest of us unlike you are Forward thinkers looking towards the future. Boeing DID NOT GIVE THE AIR FORCE WHAT THEY WANTED! and they LOST, and in January they WILL LOSE AGAIN. You Being the consumate Boeing Ballwasher you are continue to talk a lot without saying anything of value, You get caught in lies constantly saying the KC-45 can’t do this ‚or it can’t do that and when people prove you wrong you insult them. And you are calling other people imature????? Yet another peice of work from the Boeing lap dog, “KC-767AT is the right choice for the USAF” –Uh.……No you don’t, you may know what is good for Boeing but that is about it. Claiming to know make believe phantom Tanker “Generals and crewman” doesn’t make you an expert in anything, it just shows you have a good imagination, So just continue to insult people who don’t want to step into your bull crap and take your ball and go home.
	pfcem August 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm Jack, No, I (& Boeing) am not living in the past. You & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers are ignoring it (except for what was wrong with the tanker lease & even then you blaim it all on Boeing when Boeing was not in control). USAF tanker operations haven’t changed since 2002. The 2007 KC-X RFP (even with the changes FORCED into it by the demand to make it appear as though the noncompetative KC-30 could win so that therre would be a competition) still asked for a medium KC-135-like tanker. The USAF is still flying KC-135s because (aside from being old & getting overly expensive to maintain — resulting in lower & lower mission capability rates) are perfectly capable tankers. In fact one of the “problems” with the tanker lease was that the USAF did not adequitely justify the “need” to replace them so soon. And the only thing saving us from an absolute disaster is that fact. Still blaiming Boeing for what Druyun & Sears did I see and ingoring that everything THEY did was undone/renegotiated even before the lanker lease was finalized. But lets (as you say) look forward. The KC-767AT met or exceeded all KC-X key requirements (NG/EADS & the USAF failed to justify how the KC-30 met a number of key requirements). The KC-767AT met FAR more non-key requirements (the KC-767AT had 98 discriminators & only 1 weakness while the KC-30 had just 30 discriminators & 5 weakness, plus the GAO ruling takes away a number of KC-30 discriminators & adds a number of weaknesses). The KC-767AT can operate effectively using the existing infrastructure (the KC-30 requires billion of dollars in infrastructure inprovements to even be able to complete the missions KC-135 currently do). With or without infrastructure improvements the KC-767AT can operate from more airfields & operate in greater numbers from each airfield than the KC-30 (VERY important in a political environment where access to desired airfields may be denied). The KC-767AT will cost less (in fact if you add up all the infrastructure, maintanance & operational costs over the expected 40 year life of the KC-X, the KC-767AT could very well save MORE than the projected $35–40 billion developement & procurements cost — aka the KC-767AT could pay for itself in cost saving over the KC-30). As an airlift assest the KC-767AT can replace 1 or 2 (depending on the payload) C-17 & no anaylsis (even though one has been asked for by the GAO) justifying airlift capability in an aerial refueling tanker — while I am sure nobody doubts the benefit of having airlift capability in a tanker, how can anyone think more than 1–2 C-17 equivalent is justified. The KC-767AT can transfer either >25,000 lbs more fuel than the KC-135R at a given radius OR can transfer as much fuel as a KC-135R at a given at >500nm greater radius. Even if better planning results in a DOUBLING of the average per sortie fuel offload from the last four conflicts, the KC-767AT has the capacity to do the job. I could go on & on & on but basically most of what you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers think is so great about the KC-30 (& so much of what you think is so great is not even a primary purpose of the KC-X) is in fact great about the KC-767AT without the KC-30’s faults. Nobody has yet to prove anything I have said to be wrong. I have however proven many EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker fallacies wrong. I never said I was an expert, but unlike you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers, I listen to the REAL experts rather than pencil pushers at the Pentagon who either have no tanker experience or have been sitting at a desk so long they have forgotten whatever tanker experience they had &/or have hitched their carriers to the EADS/KC-30 wagon.
	Chris August 18th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Boeing Caddy writes, I listen to the REAL experts. –Enlighten us genius, who are these so called “Tanker Generals” that you have such a close relationship to?
	T Demps USAF ret. August 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm This pfcem guy has no clue as to what goes on in real world tanker ops. Seems to me like he gets his info straight from Boeing’s integrated systems website. “or have been sitting at a desk so long they have forgotten whatever tanker experience they had ” It’s sad that ignorant p-r-i-c-k-s who never served in uniform are so quick to criticize those of us who have, It’s people like us that give the rights to people like you to post your garbage from your Parent’s basement.
	Oldest391 August 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm Hey all the info that pfcem is giving out is the same mis-information that Boeing has been doing ever since they lost the proposal. No one could know that much information unless he was being feed it by some one in Boeing. He has been quoting many Boeing figures that makes you wonder where he got it all. The way this is going, Congress should stop all foreign car sales and remove any manufature plant in the US if they stop this tanker deal. Remember we all live in a Gobal ecomony now, but Boeing wants to be the king and have no competition.
	pfcem August 19th, 2008 at 12:17 am Chris, I never said I had a close relationship with any tanker General [but it is a common tactic for losers like you to deliberatle misrepresent what other have said since you can not back up your own comments or refute those actually made by others]. I have however read & listened to comments made by actual tanker Generals, crew & maintenance personnel — including a number who have released PUBLIC STATEMENTS about how much of a bad idea it is to procure the KC-30 as well as those who have posted comments here & elsewhere [and last but not least comments made in private conversation]. * T Demps, While I do not claim to be an expert, I do know quite a lot about real world USAF tanker operations (past, present & future). In fact it would SHOULD not take much more than someone visiting [or for those unable to travel, use Google Earth to get a view of them from above] existing KC-135 operations airfileds & with common sense (including the knowledge that the KC-30 is BIGGER than the KC-10, C-17 & B-52) see quite clearly IS too big to replace our KC-135s. Show me where ANYTHING I have posted comes from the Boeing Integrated Systems website rather than any number of other public sources. While I thank you for your service I regret to inform you that things DO happen to people who work at the Pentagon to long… * Oldest391, I challenge you (or any other of you ingoranuses) to show ANYTHING I have posted as misinformation. I HAVE shown how MUCH of what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have posted is. It really is sad how a few individuals with no clue what they are talking about can make a lot of noise on internet forums hoping to drown out the truth. The fact that you think there is no way anyone could know as much information as I have supplied unless they were being feed it by someone in Boeing just proves how much you don’t know. As far as I know EVERYTHING I have posted is public domain which anyone with decent research skills should be able to find [although given that I have been following the USAF’s tanker recapitalization efforts since BEFORE 9/11 & have been a military enthusiast for three decades I realize that most have A LOT of catching up do do before they get to my level]. I have even listed a half dozen or so GOVERNMENT websites where it is amazing just how much you can learn. Hell, more of what I have posted comes from GOVERNMENT sources than anything else [sad how you & others don’t realize just how much of what even Boeing has said actually comes directly or indirectly from the government, either repeating what the government has released publicly or from what Boeing has been told by the government]. http://armedservices.house.gov/ http://digital.library.unt.edu/ http://www.gao.gov/ http://www.govexec.com/ http://www.leeham.net/ http://opencrs.com/ http://stinet.dtic.mil/ http://www.fas.org/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/ Educate yourself. What are you smoking? Who said anything about stoping any foreign sales or removing any manufacturing plants? YES WE LIVE IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY! And guess what, the KC-767AT has ~15% foreign content because of it. Note that my comments concerning the US & foreign content of the KC-30 have been to refute the notion that the KC-30 would be BUILT by Northrop Grumman &/or that Northrop Grumman is the sole contractor (doing the majority of the work) on KC-30 with EADS/Airbus being nothing more than a subconctractor supplying a small percentage of “parts” (like Boeing’s subcontractors do) and, for those who happen to care (I have made it clear that it is small potatos to me compared to getting the RIGHT tanker — but of course chosing US suppliers over foreign suppliers for critical military needs is a wise course of action), that the difference in foreign content between the KC-767AT & KC-30 comes out to ~$10 billion dollars going to Europe with the KC-30 that would stay in the US with the KC-767AT.
	Buzzknight August 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am I do understand why pfcem keeps calling it the EADS/KC-30, she wants to make this an us vs. them battle to drum up nationalistic pride. If you wish to call it the KC-30 not the selected KC-45, then by all means live in the past. But please call it the NG/KC-30, since NG is the prime integrator. I dont call the F/A-18 the NG F/A-18, although the majority of it is built by NG. It is called the Boeing F/A-18 because Boeing is the prime. I also dont call the 767 offering the Kawasaki 767 (although they do make the forward and center fuselage and part of the wing.)
	Cole August 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am Heh, pfcem gave us a link with a great article that shows the relative futility of Boeing’s position: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn081908.pdf Note that one recommendation in the link is a split buy, with even John Murtha pondering that alternative. That may be the best way for Boeing to come out ahead while the USAF and other services get what they need. My view of this from an Army-support, Alabama/total U.S. jobs, and future competition perspective…but I can see some of pfcem’s points. I’m thinking he either works as a Congressional staffer in Washington state or is a union mole. BTW, at the end of the link above, read on about a predicted Boeing strike in two weeks. Again, I think Boeing makes great products from the Apache, to the C-17, to the F/A-18, and Chinook in CH/MH/CSAR forms. They just don’t seem to have a product that best meets the KC-X requirement…unless you go split buy to use the 767 for low fuel loads to save gas and fit those tighter fields, and the KC-30 to augment the KC-10 fleet and save C-17 sorties through enhanced 463L pallet transport…while still carrying fuel.
	Jack August 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am pfcem writes, I have however read & listened to comments made by actual tanker Generals, crew & maintenance personnel — including a number who have released PUBLIC STATEMENTS about how much of a bad idea it is to procure the KC-30 as well as those who have posted comments here & elsewhere [and last but not least comments made in private conversation]. You prove time and time again that you are nothing more then a fraud, I seriously doubt you have the ears of as you put it “tanker Generals, crew & maintenance personnel”. Yet you attack Air Force personel who have pubicly supported the KC-45. – pfcem writes, but it is a common tactic for losers like you.. –Once again you are acting like a child who doesn’t get his way by verbally attacking somebody who just happens to think the KC-45 is the right choice???? Insulting people will not get others to take you seriously, Boeing is learning that the hard way :) and before you call someone a loser you should look really hard in the mirror.
	Jack August 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am pfcem writes, I challenge you (or any other of you ingoranuses –Really mature there buddy, can you lose your composure anymore???? have been a military enthusiast for three decades I realize that most have A LOT of catching up do do before they get to my level –And he calls us the losers??????? Someone has an inferiority complex here, Sorry while you were being an enthusiast in your basement err home, some of us were actually serving in uniform in THE REAL WORLD, and working HANDS ON with some of these systems we talk about.
	Jack August 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am I regret to inform you that things DO happen to people who work at the Pentagon to long… –You would know right, since you never served in uniform, Do you know that because you use Google Earth?
	Chris August 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm pfcem, Why don’t you tell us how you really feel.
	daskro August 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm ^^ I never thought it would resort to trolling.
	pfcem August 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm Buzzknight, No, the KC-30 is an EADS product MANUFACTURED BY EADS. If Airbus/EADS goes ahead with the US assembly plant, are those A330 airliners going to be called Northrop Grumman A330s? And the Australian KC-30B isn’t call a Qantas (doing for Australia what NG would do for the US KC-30) KC-30B is it? I didn’t think so. ;) Yes, for political reasons, NG is the primary contractor on the KC-30 but NG’s workshare is unlikely more than 1/3 of the total. Sorry but Mitsubishi, Kawasaki & Fuji supply fuselage panels (NOT whole fuselage sections), aerodynamic fairings, landing-gear doors & inspar ribs. The 767 (as well as the 747, 777 & 787) is MANUFACTURED by Boeing in Everett, WA.
	pfcem August 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm Cole, No, I am not a Congressional staffer, have never lived in Washington state & have never been a member of any union. Interesting article isn’t it… Just a couple things. The problem with the short time table (takes me back to 2002–2003) is that IF the intent of the new RFP is to ask for a larger tanker like the KC-30 then having such a short time table shows clear bias towards the KC-30 since everyone knows that Boeing could not realistically put together a solid/complete bid with anything other than the KC-767AT (unless it has already done a LOT more work on the KC-777 or –300/-400 based KC-767 than it admits to) in such a short time. Boeing would not have to base a KC-777 on the 777-200LRF. The “standard” 777–200 at 209′ 1″ long, 199′ 11″ wingspan, 304,500 lb (138,100 kg) operational empty weight & 545,000 lbs (247,200 kg) max take-off weight “fits” the absurd notion of a 550,000 lb max take-off weight medium tanker. The range of the 777-200LR is 9,380 nm (17,370 km) — it is currently the longest range airliner in the world — 4,885 nm (9,045 km) is the quoted range for the 777 Freighter [for comparrison the 767-300F has a range of 3,255 nm (6,025 km) & the 747-8F has a range of 4,475 nm (8,275 km)]. Boeing could (although I would not) propose a “767-300LRF” platform with 767-300ER fuselage & 767-400ER wings, landing gear, flight deck et cetera. With the 767-400ER 450,000 lbs max take-off weight it could match the fuel capacity of the KC-30 (although it would still have less cargo capacity due to its shorter & smaller diameter fuselage). And the result would be a tanker with the length (180′ 3″) & wingspan (170′ 4″) simlar to the KC-10 but STILL notably smaller than the KC-30…
	Buzzknight August 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am Subcontractors for 767 direct from Janes: Northrop Grumman (wing centre-section and adjacent lower fuselage section; fuselage bulkheads); Vought Aircraft (horizontal tail); Canadair (rear fuselage); Alenia (wing control surfaces, flaps and leading-edge slats, wingtips, elevators, fin and rudder, nose radome); Fuji (wing/body fairings and main landing gear doors); Kawasaki (forward and centre fuselage; exit hatches; wing in-spar ribs); Mitsubishi (rear fuselage body panels and rear fuselage doors). I hope that clears up the “Made in America” arguement.…Also, since the KC-45 will be manufactured in the US as well (components will be shipped from Europe much like the 767) I am not sure what the nationalistic argument amounts to since both planes will be made in the US by US defense contractors utilizing foreign subcontractors. The only difference is that Boeing is requesting a delay of the tanker to the warfighter, which up until the original award was unthinkable by both companies. How do you respond to the fact that the tanker procurement process was deemed fair by Boeing up until the award went to NG?
	BS_Buster August 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm It is becoming apparent that pflem’s handlers are beginning to pressure him over his constant blog losses to more accurate and believable entires. Since he has confessed to not being associated with anyone nor any profession that knows anything about the topic, that only leaves his true calling, paid political prostitute, for the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC team. Oh, I suppose we are suppose to be politically correct and just call him a Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC lobbyist, same difference. We can really rile him up by simply not responding to his nonsense, when he doesn’t get paid he will hopfully just go away. 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
	pfcem August 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm Buzzknight, Did you even read what you posted. Nice list of 767 PARTS supplied by subcontractors. The 767 is made up of more than THREE MILLION parts and there are more than 800 suppliers. The KC-30 will/would not be MANUFACTURED in the US. FINAL ASSEMBLY DOES NOT EQUAL MANUFACTURING. The ENTIRE aircraft is/would be MANUFACTURTED in Europe, not just PARTS like body panels, control surfaces, fairings & doors but the ENTIRE aircraft. There is a difference between 15% foreign content & 42% foreign content no matter how much you try to minimize it. *** BS_Buster, Not one truth in that entire post. I haven’t “confessed” to anything, just dispelled the lies people like you make up since you can’t back up your BS or counter the truths I & others have posted…
	Oldest391 August 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm How can you counter the “Boeing Truth”. They have an alternate answer for everything that will spin it their way. pfcem is just another nouth piece that Boeing is using.
	Buzzknight August 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Let me outline the truths in my post: I feel like I am arguing with a teenager (truth). Things like wing boxes and rear fuselages are not small parts (truth) (nice three million reference though I am impressed (lie)). It is fruitless to try and convert Boeing apologists, I am just trying to educate the uniformed, who without any counter points they would have to believe your Boeing propoganda (truth). Also, what are your percentages derived from, weight, dollars, lines of code? See below: http://www.ofii.org/newsroom/news/031008bw.html Your right there is a difference between 85% US (767), 58% US (KC-45) and 30% US (787) (truth). The USAF could argue that the increased capability of the KC-45 is worth the foreign content (speculation). Maybe Boeing should follow their own rhetoric and start building the 787 with more US workers (speculation). Oh wait, according to Boeing the US should provide our troops with inadequate tankers to stay American, while the same US workers should be laid off due to 787 outsourcing. Boeing cant even stay consistent in house (truth). Finally, if I believed the Boeing rhetoric and the US disallowed any foreign participation in defense programs our troops would still be dying in US made Humvees rather than surviving in British made MRAPs (truth).
	Chris August 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pm BuzzKnight, You are wasting your breath with pfcem,BS_Buster hit the nail right on the head about that guy.
	Ruslan124 August 21st, 2008 at 5:43 am As usual, every conversation that relates to the Tanker conversation starts very interestingly and then denigrates into a series of personal attacks. I notice that once we get into it the Boeing camp almost ultimately falls back on the foreign content argument. I am not going to join in the discussion about which aircraft has most US content as I quite frankly think it is irrelevant. The USAF should by the tanker it wants. For those of you screaming for buy America only I have 1 question; why is it OK for Boeing to sell billions of dollars of military equipment to overseas governments (including tankers) but when it comes to US purchases, we suddenly shout “unfair, buy American”. Boeing cannot have its cake and eat it. Make a choice. I really enjoy the discussions on the technical merits of each of the offers. Lets have more of that.
	Chris August 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am The ENTIRE aircraft is/would be MANUFACTURTED in Europe, not just PARTS like body panels, control surfaces, fairings & doors but the ENTIRE aircraft. Are GE Engines Manufactured in Europe?????????? I think they are in the MidWest, It’s been awhile since I took Geography but I’m almost certain that is in the United States. Pfcem is a TOTAL FRAUD.
	pfcem August 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am Buzzknight, You may be a teenager but it has been 16 years since I was a teenager. I didn not say small parts but still parts (as opposed to the ENTIRE airframe as in the KC-30)… I am not a Boeing apologists but you being a EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aide drinker assume as such of anyone who does not fall for your lies. Sorry but there IS a difference between competing in a world/global airline market (including being forced to use ever increasing portion of lower cost foreign labor in order to remain cost competitive vs the government subsidized Airbus) & providing a vital military platform for the USAF. And since you continue to ignor/misrepresent what I have said…The significance of the high foreign content of the KC-30 is that, contrary to what EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker are trying to fool people into thinking, it is not MANUFACTURED by Northrop Grumman — it IS an EADS/Airbus MANUFACTURED A330-200 turned into a tanker by NG (just as Qantas does for the Aistralian KC-30B — you don’t see anybody caling it a Qantas KC-30B). Yes some people DO have a problem with sending ~$10 billion to Europe, especially when doing so saddles the US with a noncompetitive too big tanker which does not fit or meet the stated mission & requirements. No, according to Boeing we should get the RIGHT tanker. The one which best fits the stated mission & requirements rather than altering the mission & requirements to fit an otherwise noncompetitive platform. Boeing is not, although some protectionist (the US has always had a strong protectionist contingent within the public which for a time kept the US out of WWI & WWII) not affiliated with Boeing are, saying we should disallow any foreign participation in defense programs. Sorry but Britain does not build all our MRAPs.
	pfcem August 21st, 2008 at 10:50 am Chris, Quit your whining. If you had half a brain you would know what I meant. But since you insist on being a child about it… The ENTIRE aircraft (except for the GE engines — which were chosen primarliy for commonality with other platforms but also because it IS better, in many ways, for vital military systems to be sourced from US companies rather than foreign ones) is/would be MANUFACTURTED in Europe, not just PARTS like body panels, control surfaces, fairings & doors but the ENTIRE aircraft (except for the GE engines).
	Chris August 21st, 2008 at 11:01 am Quit your whining. If you had half a brain you would know what I meant. But since you insist on being a child about it –I’m not whining, I just point out everytime you makk an Arse out of yourself:) I expected this typical spin laden response from someone as imature as you, You may have been a teenager 16 years ago but clearly your mind has not adapted
	Jack August 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm “saddles the US with a noncompetitive too big tanker” –Yet 4 other Countries have chosen it as their Tanker over Boieng’s Australia United Kigdom UAE Saudi Arabia
	Jack August 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm This doesn’t look to good for Boeing; Subject: Boeing Delay on Italy, Japan Tankers May Harm Bid for U.S. Work Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) — Italy will penalize Boeing Co. for being three years late in delivering the first of four aerial refueling tankers. The company is negotiating with the Italian government over the penalty’s size and composition, Cliff Hall, director of Boeing’s international tanker programs, said in an interview. Boeing paid a fine to Japan last year for being one year late on delivering the first of four tankers to that nation’s air force. Performance on prior contracts is a factor in the U.S. military’s contest between Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corp. for a $35 billion aerial refueling tanker contract. The Pentagon hopes to award a contract by late December. Boeing’s record on the Japanese and Italian tanker programs is “totally relevant” to its bid for the U.S. program, Scott Hamilton, an aviation consultant with Seattle-based Leeham Co., said. “This goes directly to ‘past performance.’ You don’t pay penalties for good performance.” Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group defense industry consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia, said delays on these two programs “have prompted Boeing to play defense against charges of ‘underperformance’ and therefore a high risk of technical difficulties on the U.S. program.” Boeing’s December 2002 contract with Italy promised the first tanker by November 2005. Delivery now is set for November, three years late, with the second slated for delivery in December, or 21 months late. Boeing expects the third and fourth planes to be delivered at least 16 months and 12 months late, respectively. ‘Italians Were Angry’ Boeing is “working with the Italians on different options” for the penalty it must pay that could include cash and extra services, Hall said. “It’s not really safe to say what that might be or how much. The Italians don’t move fast on these types of matters,” he said. “I expect it to be resolved next year.” “The Italians — they were angry, but I think they are starting to see that we are making solid progress,” Hall said. “I wouldn’t call it an ‘excellent’ relationship yet. I would say we are mending fences.” Factors contributing to the delay included design changes, expanded U.S. flight testing, greater-than-expected challenges to software integration, and the complexity of getting the plane ready for certification by the Federal Aviation Administration, Hall said. Italian Embassy Press Counsel Fabrizio Bucci in an e-mail said, “We understand Boeing’s problems. We are, however, confident that they will be soon overcome and the delivery will take place shortly.” Penalized by Japan Boeing’s penalty from Italy will be the second incurred on its international tanker programs. Delivering Japan’s first tanker a year late on Feb. 29 cost Boeing “well under $5 million,” Hall said. The fine was paid by Itochu Corp., Boeing’s Japanese partner in the deal, and Boeing reimbursed Itochu, Hall said.
	Jack August 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pm Another interesting read; Noted aviation industry analyst Scott Hamilton has posted a new report on his company website focusing on the tanker competition and offering an assessment and some predictions concerning Boeing. As always, Hamilton provides some unique insights. In large part, the analysis compares the KC-135 with the plane Boeing is currently proposing, the KC-767AT as well as the KC-45. He also throws a potential 777 tanker into the mix, though he dismisses the likelihood of Boeing proposing it. He says, instead, that the company might try to offer a 767–400, which is larger than the proposed 767AT. He adds, however, that the 767–400 “is still less capable” than Northrop Grumman’s tanker in that “it has less Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW), less range, less engine thrust and, we believe, less field performance.” Hamilton wraps up his analysis by making a few predictions about Boeing’s strategy in the coming weeks. As has been indicated by Boeing’s own public statements in recent weeks, Hamilton’s predictions all center on the various efforts Boeing will make to further delay a long-delayed process. “The prospects of Boeing protesting the new DFRP are, we think, high,” he writes and, of course, an additional protest would be designed to cause additional delay in the effort to replace the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet. He also anticipates another dose of hypocrisy coming from Boeing. “Although up to the February 29 contract award, all parties – including Boeing and its supporters — kept emphasizing the need for an immediate tanker award … Look for the prospect of this to shift to a new line of thinking. This will be, ‘What’s the hurry to compete this contract by January 1?’” Further, he bemoans the return of the “silly season” when it comes to Boeing rhetoric. By way of example he mentions the oft-repeated refrain from Boeing supporters that an award to Northrop Grumman will lead to the risk that Europeans will withhold tanker parts from the Air Force in the event of a war. “This theory ignores the fact that most KC-135s are powered by the CFM-56, made by CFM international … A 50–50 joint venture of GE and a French company, the latter which has never withheld parts for maintenance on the KC-135s.” And, of course, it also ignores the long list of foreign suppliers Boeing uses when it builds 767’s. Hamilton closes by pointing out the obvious: “The procurement remains a mess, and Boeing has nobody to blame but itself for the present circumstances considering the 2002-04 procurement scandal.”
	pfcem August 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm Ruslan124, It does not take long when dealing with EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers for the “conversation” to degrade to personal attacks since their BS is so easily debunked & they do not have much of substance to back up much of anything they post nor do they have much of substance to cunter the FACTS provided by others. A correction, you notice once again that in an attempt to “defend” the KC-30 the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers falsely put for the notion that the KC-30 will be MANUFACTURED in the US by Northrop Grumman. THIS is what prompts me to set the record straight by bringing up the non-NG content of the KC-30, which of course includes the fact that more than 42% of the KC-30 content is not even US much less NG. And, as I said before, the difference in foreign content comes out to ~$10 billion going to Europe rather than staying in the US & while that may not matter to you it DOES matter to some. I am not one of those screaming for buy America only but to answer your question, when ever ANY nation has the experience, know-how & industrial base to develope & produce military systems that meet its requirements, doing so as opposed to relying on foreign suppliers SHOULD be seriously considered. And it is unconscionable for supporters of foreign systems to fault someone for preferring domestic sources to meet its military needs. I absolutely GUARANTEE that if it where EADS who was offering the 767–200 size platform & Boeing was offering the A330-200 size platform that I would be making the very same arguments about the 767–200 size platform being the right choice for the US. AND I would be making anguments that the A330-200 size platform’s failure to fit the well established mission & requirements outweighs the US vs foreign content & that the mission & requirements should not be changed to fit the A330-200 size platform just so that we can have an “American” platform when the 767–200 size platform is offered which so clearly does fit the mission & requirements. For me it is not Boeing vs Airbus or US content vs foreign content but the RIGHT tanker for the US to replace its KC-135s. It just happens to be that the RIGHT tanker is the KC-767AT which is manufactured by Boeing in the US with a comparatively small ~15% foreign content. So yes, lets keep the discussions on the REAL WORKD technical merits (not some made up BS just so that a noncompetative offer can appear competative) of each of the offers.
	pfcem August 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm Jack, Australia, UK, UAE & Saudi Arabia are not the US. They have quite different requirements than the US. And don’t be such an ignorant fool to think that factors other than the relative merits of the platform did not have a bearing on which platform they chose. And please stop regurgitating old news.
	Jack August 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm And please stop regurgitating old news –You re a sad, sad, sad, soul my friend. Stop your whining, we got to put up with the sorry crap you post, I just happen to get my information from reliable sources.
	Tom August 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pm Pfcem, Please STOP regurgitating your meaningless BOEING issued figures. you crybaby
	Buzzknight August 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 am Pfcem, what is your point? You say that we need an exact form, fit, and function of a KC-135, except that the USAF says that they would rather have a larger more capable bird? (So much that Boeing is now crying for more time to build such a proposal) Also the KC-45 is flying today, the 767 proposed has never been built and the larger airframe they want to propose hasn’t even been designed (hence the request for more time). So.…If we agree with you and don’t count foreign content, and I have to agree with the USAF in that they want a more capable tanker, and finally we all agree that the KC-135 should be replaced as soon as possible, I don’t understand what the argument for a 767 is? Are you saying that Boeing knows better than the USAF what it needs? I am glad Boeing wasn’t building buggy whips in the early 1900s or we would all still be riding horses
	BS_Buster August 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 am Now that pflem has exhausted every effort to support the 767 as the right aircraft for the job, this from the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium head man himself. ””… our 767–200 doesn’t fill that bill,” said Daniel Beck, a spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing.“ Even pflem’s handlers are turning on him. 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
	pfcem August 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm Buzzknight, What have I not made clear? No, I did not say we need an exact form, fit, and function of a KC-135. But we do need a tanker to replace our KC-135. What we DO NOT need is a tanker which is bigger & heavier than the KC-10 but with less offload capacity than the KC-10 & is SO big & heavy that it would require billions of dollars in infrastructure improvement just to be able to operate from enough airfields & in sufficient numbers to do what the KC-135 currently does for us. The KC-767AT IS larger & more capable than the KC-135R. In fact in everything indicated throughout the solicitation [Operational Requirements Document (ORD), Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), System Requirements Document (SRD), et cetera] the KC-767AT is more capable than what was asked for. So lets look at a couple things EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers say is wanted in a KC-135 replacement… Fuel offload vs radius: The KC-767AT exceeds the stated offload requirement by more than 25,000 lbs for the desired radius or exceeds the stated radius requirement by more than 500nm for the desired fuel offload. And in the real world if you look at the historical average offload per sortie, the KC-767AT is capable of DOUBLE the average (for Operation Desert Storm & Operation Allied Force at ~1,500nm, for Operation Iraqi Freedom at ~1,000nm & for Operation Enduring Freedom at ~500nm). Airlift: The only “airlift” requirement given a quantitative value was patient capacity which the KC-767AT can carry double the stated requirement. As an airlift asset, the KC-767AT can carry as many 463L pallets or roughly twice as many passengers or patients as a C-17. Unless you are going to argue that we need to replace all our C-17 with something with significantly greater capacity there is no justification for such in a TANKER [there ARE reasons why the C-17 is what it is & not another C-5]. The USAF/DOD has not done the GAO requested analysis justifying passenger & cargo capability in its replacement refueling aircraft. Nobody doubts the utility of having passenger & cargo capability in a tanker BUT just like fuel offload vs radius it is a matter of providing the RIGHT amount of capacity/capability not providing the most otherwise even the KC-30 is too small & we should be looking at the 747 vs A380 (or heaven forbit something akin to the An-225). To say that the KC-30 is a good choice to replace the KC-135 is akin to saying that when the US replaced the C-141 with the C-17, it should have been an aircraft bigger than the C-5 but with the capacity of the C-17. No the KC-45 (which could very well be a KC-767AT or some other 767 derivative) is not flying today. The KC-30 NG/EADS proposed for the KC-X is not the same as any other A330-200/A330 or MRTT/KC-30 yet built much less flying. Yes the NG/EADS proposed KC-30 is closer to the Australian KC-30B than the KC-767AT is to Italian or Japanese KC-767s but that does not mean crap since BOTH Boeing & EADS/Airbus have shown over & over again that they are perfectly capable of developing & building new derivative of existing platforms. The KC-767AT would be the 9th 767 derivative (8th if you consider the Italian & Japanese KC-767s as one) & every part of the platform (aka the 767-200LRF, not all the tanker specific equipment — much of which would be derived from that already operarting on the Italian & Japanese KC-767s) is currently FAA certified & flying today on one or more 767 varients. No, I am saying Boeing listened to what the USAF/DOD (including the KC-X solicitation meetings & documents) said & it IS clear from this that the KC-767AT is the right tanker. Prior to 2005/2006 when it was forced to change its criteria to accomodate the KC-30 for the sake of having a Congress mandated competition, the position of the USAF was that the KC-30 was noncompetative & a nonstarer which did not fit or meet its requirements. I didn’t say don’t count foreign content. Here is some food for thought. Most of the what USAF did during the tanker lease was done through a desire to get the KC-767 ASAP. Most of what the USAF did ( the DOD continues to do) during the KC-X “competition” was done to satisfy the demands of others. ;) Boeing was willing & able to sell or lease KC-767s to the USAF with the 1st expected to be deliverd in 2006. But that was taken away because the USAF failed to convince everyone of the urgency of doing so & didn’t follow all the procurement rules. Don’t be such a hypocritic to complain about a possible 6 month delay because the criteria has been AGAIN & to such a degree that more time is requested to evaluate & propose options for what is a quite different request than even 2007 when we COULD already have more than 20 new Boeing tankers.
	pfcem August 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm Note the tactics of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers like BS_Buster. Taking comments out of context to give the appearance that they mean something they do not & accusing Boeing supporters of being something they are not.
	Al Tucker August 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 am Get off of the board pfcem. No one here needs obvious obfuscation from you to explain a direct quote from Mr. Beck as to being out of context. I can read what Mr. Beck said in its entirety and that is exactly the context. You are prolific pervayer of pusilanimous drivel. “Don’t blame Boeing because of a deal between two persons over bribery”, give me a break. You claim to talk to everyone “who knows” the straight stuff but mention no names and if anyone here offers a direct quote from someone with a real name they become a kool-aid drinker and suffer an oral diatribe? I rarely post here or elsewhere but you have worn out your welcome sir…
	Al Tucker August 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 am I also looked up some of the internet references such as Global Security, which I respect, and like you it was simply a quote of a Boeing spokesperson’s comments not an evaluation of the technicals merits of both proposals. I am from Mobile and have listened to the demagogic comments, from Boeing, about lack of indigenous technically qualified persons capable of building any aircraft much less the NG bird and similar lockstep quotes from you about anyone who disagrees with you. I would like to APOLOGIZE for telling you to get off the board since I am not the moderator but while the Air Force was trying to make it a transparent process you and Boeing itself are decidely less than transparent…
	Buzzknight August 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm A good friend once told me that, “Arguing on the Internet is a lot like running in the Special Olympics.” Bottom line is that pcfem’s mind will never be changed. I just want the average reader to see that he is completely biased to the Boeing design. I think that has been made abundantly clear. So on that, we will agree to disagree (by the way the count is: KC-45: Everyone on the blog except:pcfem B767: pfcem
	pfcem August 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm Buzzknight, No, you will never get me to believe that 2+2=5 when I know it to be 4. Admittedly a bit of an exaggeration as to just how clear it is to those of us with a fair degree of understanding of REAL WOULD tanker operations/requirements that the 767 is the right platform & the A330 is not. I have made no attempt to hide my preference for the 767 & I have explained in a logical & FACTUAL manner why I do. If you think I am the only one, you have a lot of reading to do. Also not that unlike the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid I do acknowledge the merits of the pro-EADS/KC-30 argumants, when the DO have merit, & the faults in other Boeing/KC-767 supporter’s argumants. I don’t claim that it is a conspiratorial effort but it is clear that there is a concerted effort by the pro-EADS/KC-30 crowd (here & elsewhere) to drown out the truth with its constant drumbeat of rhetoric, spin & misinformation.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Bias In New Tanker Bid: Boeing Supporter

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments