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.

KC-45: Everyone on the blog except:pcfem
B767: pfcem

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.

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.

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

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

–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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

–Yet 4 other Countries have chosen it as their Tanker over Boieng’s

Australia
United Kigdom
UAE
Saudi Arabia

–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

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).

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.

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.

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.