Sen. Shelby: Tanker Proves System “Fundamentally Flawed”

Sen. Shelby: Tanker Proves System “Fundamentally Flawed”

In a vigorous op-ed piece, Sen. Richard Shelby, (R-Ala.) argues today that the “the long fight over the tanker contract proves that the acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed.”

Shelby, who has been fairly quiet until now, comes roaring out of the box, saying the decision to delay the tanker competition until the next administration was “a blatant, politically motivated decision, driven by the political and emotional hysteria generated by members of Congress who wanted Boeing to win no matter what.” He makes the grave charge that his fellow lawmakers “were more concerned with jobs in their states than U.S. war fighters’ needs.” He also accuses the Defense Department of “abdicating its responsibility to ensure our war fighters have the best equipment possible.” The defense secretary made the “wrong decision” for the “wrong reasons,” Shelby says.

The senator goes so far as to claim that the award to Northrop Grumman was cancelled “solely because Boeing was not the winner. Defense acquisition policy has been stated: If it is not a Boeing plane, DoD is not going to buy it.” Obviously referring to the age of the tanker fleet, Shelby writes in the Washington Times that, “We are now jeopardizing the safety and security of our nation and those who fight for it simply because politics trumped logic, fairness and concern for the troops.”

That may be a bridge too far, but the fact that Shelby — one of the most powerful defense senators, with a seat on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee — has come out swinging seems to indicate that Northrop Grumman’s supporters on the Hill are no longer playing by the company’s strategy that was to let the contract award speak for itself.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

“…seems to indicate that Northrop Grumman’s supporters on the Hill are no longer playing by the company’s strategy that was to let the contract award speak for itself.”

A little late in the game on this one. The horse has already fled the barn.

He’s going after the wrong target. It wasn’t DoD that stopped the acquisition; it was GAO. DoD is basically saying that if GAO is now required to sign off on every decision of any kind, then it’s not even worth trying to do anything, because now you have to satisfy yet ANOTHER bureaucracy’s set of requirements–on top of USAF, DoD, contractor, and the independent oversight contractor you’re forced to hire.

What purpose would coming out swinging after the fact serve? This is just weird. Maybe he needed to meet some contract agreement?

Regardless, I agree with his assertions (even if it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans anymore.)

Typical EADS/KC-30 hypocrisy.

The long fight over the tanker contract DOES NOT prove that the acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed because the acquisition process wasn’t followed EITHER time. During the tanker lease, the DOD/Department of the Air Force skipped steps in the process [& because of that Druyun & Sears did they got caught]. During the DOD/Department of the Air Force was FORCED to alter its requirements to accomodate the very platform which they had already rejected & then the KC-X source selection team failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation (hell, NG/EADS & the KC-X source selection team couldn’t even reasonably justify how the KC-30 even met certain key requirements) or even treat the two competators equally [& because Boeing didn’t simply role over they got caught].

He is correct that the decision to delay the tanker competition until the next administration was “a blatant, politically motivated decision”. HOWEVER it was generated by members of Congress who wanted NG/EADS to win no matter what just as much as be those who supported the Boeing proposal.

The award to NG/EADS (NOT Northrop Grumman) was cancelled because the KC-X source selection team was either grossly incompetent or because the “competition” was fixed.

DensityDuck,

No, the GAO has been a part of the process since 1921. If the DOD (more specicially the KC-X source selection team) had done its job CORRECTLY the GAO would have had no cause to sustain any protest.

“During the tanker lease, the DOD/Department of the Air Force skipped steps in the process [& because of that Druyun & Sears did they got caught].”

Dear pfcem, you forgot to mention that Boeing also get caught and paid a huge penalty.

“During the DOD/Department of the Air Force was FORCED to alter its requirements to accomodate the very platform which they had already rejected”

“they” was Druyun, Sears & Boeing and their requirements only fit well for a 767-200ER.

“(hell, NG/EADS & the KC-X source selection team couldn’t even reasonably justify how the KC-30 even met certain key requirements)”

Hell, KC-767AT airframe didn’t even fly up until today. How could anyone (except Boeing and pfcem) reasonably justify KC-767AT meet certain key requirements.

What about a fly-off with wing pod dummies? Then you can really say something about each aircrafts capabilities.

Hell, at this point we might as well throw some new Il-78 Midas tankers into the mix. I bet we could get them cheap. (kidding of course)
simple fact is the KC-45 is a more capable aircraft and can get to the warfighter faster. At this point, this is all that should matter.

pfcem,
You can get off your knees and zip up Boeing’s pants now.…

MHalblaub,

No I SPECIFICALLY said BECAUSE of what Druyun & Sears did. OBVIOUSLY Druyun & Sears got caught (& fired by Boeing BEFORE negotiations were finaliazed on leasing 20 & buying 80 KC-767) otherwise the investigations which exposed what the DOD/Department of the Air Force did may not have happened.

No, “they” was the DOD/Department of the Air Force/USAF/AMC. The 767-200ER CLEARLY best fit the 26 tanker requirements the DOD/Department of the Air Force/USAF/AMC had developed since 1996 (which Boeing had NO part in determining other than possibly some consulting on the capabilities of modern airliner platforms) but the DOD/Department of the Air Force/USAF/AMC wanted tankers sooner rather than later (in no small part to get rid of the KC-135Es ASAP — now we are still grounding them all by the end of the year but will not have anything to replace them for at least 5 years) & thus AFTER they chose the KC-767 set about getting the KC-767.

The KC-X source selection team determined that the KC-767AT met or exceeded ALL key requirements. The KC-X source selection team even had concerns that the KC-30 wouldn’t but went ahead & gave it to NG/EADS anyway.

Sgt JFK,

Bigger is NOT necessarily better. Sure the KC-30 looks good in a simple 1-vs-1 characteristics comparision to those who have no clue what the numbers actally mean &/or how they actually effect the operational capabilities/performance of a fleet of tankers.

Unfortunately for the KC-30, once you understand what the numbers actually mean &/or how they actually effect the operational capabilities/performance of a fleet of tankers the KC-30 looks BAD & WRONG. The thing is bigger & heavier than every aircraft in the US inventory except for the C-5s & a handful of 747-based aircraft. It won’t be able to operate where it would be the most effective/efficient to do so, in many of the places were it can operate from it can not operate with a heavier payload than the KC-767AT & won’t be able to operate in sufficient numbers to get the job done without having to operate from MORE bases farther away from where it would be most effective/efficient to do (thus making it even LESS effective/efficient). The VAST majority of the time the full capacity of the KC-767AT won’t even be utilized much less the greater capacity of the KC-30 & for those situation were the greater capacity of the KC-30 is of ANY benefit whatsoever, that is what the KC-10 & their eventual replacement are for.

NG/EADS CAN NOT get the KC-30 to the warfighter faster than Boeing can get the KC-767AT to the warfighter.

pfcem,
The government wanted more KC-10s, but were limited by your company’s influence (I call them your company because you are obviously in bed with them)

Your company was promising a 767 on time to Japan and Italy and they were late.…therefore your promises of delivery date for the USAF are pure speculation.

Also just because you generally drive with a single person in the car does that mean that you shouldn’t buy a vehicle that can sit more then one? Of course not, because you don’t buy a vehicle (plane, etc) on the average requirement, but on capabilities it provides. So the USAF liked the larger sedan, they liked the tanker to tanker refueling capability, and they hated the fact that Boeing routinely promises more than they can deliver (cost and schedule).

Please stop saying you know more than the USAF on what they need (it is insulting to everyone who reads it)

pfcem, you’re cracking me up.

Boeing asks for more time so they can propose a 777 tanker that negates all the advantages you claimed for the 767…higher fuel expenditure, larger footprint to take up more ramp space, longer take-off roll meaning fewer airfields available.

But the biggie is that the 767 tanker was already a royal rip-off $3 billion more per plane versus the larger and newer KC-30. I can only guess what Boeing will want for a 777 tanker after it factors in the extra expense of the current IAM and coming SPEEA strike.

As for Senator Shelby, I’m somewhat puzzled at how quiet our representatives were until it was too late.:(

Correction, Boeing wanted $3 billion more for the total initial buy of what 89 KC-X aircraft…half the KC-X total?

Buzzknight,

No, I am not in bed with Boeing in any way. Boeing just happens to be offering the MUCH better platform.

EADS hasn’t been on time or on budget on any recent aircraft either.

Try using a realistic analogy. By the way, the “average requirement” for aerial refueling (based on the last for conflict the US has/is involved in) is less than 60,000 lbs per sortie.

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

Quit confusing the KC-X source selection team with the USAF. The DOD/Department of the Air Force/USAF/AMC chose the 767 & REJECTED the A330.

***

Cole,

Try doing some research beyond reading “news” headlines & press releases. It is purely unsupported speculation that Boeing would propose a 777 for round three. Boeing wanted the extra time to study the BEST solution for the new requirements (changed ONCE AGAIN to FURTHER accomodate the KC-30 even though it was NOT the requirements which were protested or sustained). UNLIKE EADS, Boeing IS NOT trying to force anything down anyone’s throat & only wants to provide the USAF with the BEST tanker for what it needs at a FAIR price.

Once again, are these numbers being tossed out there correct, or are they the same convoluted numbers from the KC-X source selection team (which ADDED $5.2 billion to Boeing’s bid & included mathematical errors)?

pfcem: Right, and Boeing is always on time, which is why the skies are filled with Dreamliners.

PS I love how your chart says that OEF and OIF both were over 60,000 pounds, and you interpret that as “average requirement is less than 60 kip”.

PPS “are they the same convoluted numbers from the KC-X source selection team (which ADDED $5.2 billion to Boeing’s bid & included mathematical errors?”

I look forward to your post about how the C-5 modernisation program was scuppered because the USAF kept insisting that Lockheed’s cost per a/c was too low.

pfcem said:“Try doing some research beyond reading “news” headlines & press releases.“
——————————————-
You don’t consider John Young a good and accurate source? He told the Washington Post that Boeing’s bid was $15.4 billion for 68 aircraft vs. $12.5 billion for that many NG/EADS aircraft.

Boeing’s bid comes out to around $225 million an aircraft, which assumes parts etc. Ouch. Using that figure, replacing all tankers would cost far more than the estimated $100 billion the USAF had predicted for all three KC airplanes. With NG/EADS, it fits the $100 billion budget nicely and gives the USAF a far superior medium KC capability than it currently has in both lift potential and fuel offload.

Regardless of what you claim, it gets close to 767 fuel consumption with identical 50,000 lb loads…but the A330 has the legs to stay on station longer or fly farther carrying the same load. Only one of the two aircraft can carry 245,000 lbs for those missions where acting more like a KC-10 is appropriate…during the air bridge or supporting larger planes.

Did you forget the real world ATO example I gave you where the USAF found ways to use the larger capacity of the KC-10 on one Desert Storm day…the same way they would have found a way to use the added KC-30 fuel load. Then look at your Afghanistan example where average fuel offloads were larger and distances were greater…a perfect scenario for the larger KC-30…similar to the air bridge scenario for Hawaii to Guam or Japan. Real world missions are plentiful where lots of KC-30s would be enormously beneficial vs the KC-767.

The point remains that a 767 variant is too old and too little. A 777 variant is too large by your own criteria. Both cost more than the NG/EADS bid by a wide margin. Even rewinging the 767 leaves an old aircraft that still does not match A330 capabilities…and costs far more. Bottom line is that Boeing lacks a product that can do what the A330 can do. Boeing should have pressed for a split buy…its only chance.

Look the reason the main reason the contract is no longer going forward and why you crying little girls in Alabama can’t cry foul, is simply that NG/EADS is subsidized by a foreign government. Do you really want the plans of American military aircraft (whether fighter, bomber, or support role) to be drawn up by a foreign power?
American military utilities should and will always be manufactured in America, for the same reason that the security of American ports was not handed over to a company subsidized by a foreign government.

People of Alabama I know you wanted the contract cause it would get you a job, but here’s a thought for you to chew on.
MOVE SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN FUCKING ALABAMA!!!!!
Quit your bitchin’ and move somewhere that has a need for employees, and quit waiting around for someone to spoon feed you!

Fighter: Multiple foreign partners will benefit from F-35 production of parts in their countries

P-8A: Will share engine production between U.S. GE and french SNECMA

KC-767: Would have a major Japanese section

British BAE builds Bradley fighting vehicles and is a FCS partner. Many MRAPs are foreign built and designed

The President will fly in a foreign-designed aircraft

Suspect that many/most employees at Washington state’s Microsoft are not U.S. born

We have plenty of jobs in Alabama and low unemployment. The problem with the coasts is you boys have inflated home prices to ridiculous levels which is the basis for much/most current economic problems and bad loans where you can’t pay off adjustable, interest-only, and NINJA loans and now the interest rate have gone up on houses that are worth less than you borrowed.

So big companies, foreign and domestic start looking at areas where employees can get by comfortably on far less…places like the south.

I grew up in the Silicon Valley and would happily move back there with others in my family if greed and inflated incomes had not inflated housing prices so severely. I read that many in Washington state would be glad to see Boeing move out of that state to restore incomes and housing prices to more reasonable levels there (oops forgot about Microsoft).

Neither the U.S. military, nor the U.S. traveling public should have to pay throught the nose to travel by air because you boys won’t move out of the rain forest to the south where you can dry off and see your money go farther. I designed and had my house built for $65 grand in 1986, and it’s paid off now. You can still get a 2000 square foot house in Mobile for under $200 grand. Figure it out. Come work for less and live better or continue to demand more and price yourself out of a job due to outsourcing.

Oops, Mobile is cheaper than I thought:

From this August 2008 article of median prices:

http://​money​.cnn​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​0​8​/​1​4​/​r​e​a​l​_​e​s​t​a​t​e​/​q​u​a​r​t​e​r​_​t​h​r​e​e​_​h​o​m​e​_​p​r​i​c​es/

Mobile, AL: $138,900
Gulfport-Biloxi: $143,300
Montgomery: $144,200
Birmingham-Hoover: $163,500

Seatle-Tacoma-Bellevue: $380,500

Did I mention we have the lowest property taxes in the U.S.?

DensityDuck,

The skies WILL be filled with Dreamliners & while delivery of the very first customer aircraft has been delayed, production ramp-up is expected to be hasened so that by the end of the 1st or 2nd year of production all of the delays will have been negated. :) Beside the point is to point out the BS hipocracy of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers such as yourself you hark on Boeing for being late but ignore that being late & overbudget on military programs is the NORM rather than the exception & that include EADS.

The average from the last four conflicts IS less than 60,000 lbs per sortie. Operation Enduring Freedom was the only one were it was notably higher but yet it was still WELL below the capability of the KC-135R much less the KC-767AT. The point being that the “average requirement” you mentioned is in fact quite low, MUCH lowere than what thr requirements are & about HALF what the KC-767AT can offload at 1,000nm.

Cole,

NO I do not consider John Young a good and accurate source. He has made it quite clear of his incompotence &/or bias. Remeber HE is the one who was supposed to make sure that the KC-X competition was “fair & transparent” & HE (not the USAF) who changed the requirements (even though they were not protested or sustained). While the numbers being quoted MAY be include the correct arithmetic, I do not put it past Mr. Young to still use the INCORRECT $5.2 billion dollar increase over the Boeing bid.

Thanks for continuing to show your ignorance. Even if we accept the $15.4 billion (which I don’t) that INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS which only have to be paid ONCE at the beginning, not over & over again. That is the same kind of BS ignorant (or biased & untruthful) people use to claim that the F-22 is too expensive since the average cost of the 1st 100 was over $200 million each (the average for the “last” AKA latest 60 is/was less than $150 & estimates for if the USAF get the 381 it needs are as low as $120 million — a ~$120 million F-22 looks like a steal compared to a ~90 million F-15 or F/A-18E/F).

No, despite the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid the KC-30 DOES burn NOTABLY more fuel carrying the same load as the KC-767AT. And despite the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid the KC-X will VERY RARELY EVER even offload the full capacity of the KC-767AT much less the KC-30 & for those occasions where you do need more you have the KC-10s (& their eventual replacement). Add to that the fact that the KC-767AT can operate in larger numbers from ANY airfield the KC-X will operate from (even INCLUDING a number that the KC-30 can’t operate with greater capacity than the KC-767AT or even AT ALL) & the KC-30 not only burtns more fuel every hour but has to operate MORE hours (greater transet distances) just to accomplish the same missions.

The KC-767AT is NOT too old or too little. The KC-767AT is EVERRY BIT as “new” as the KC-30 & being is how it EXCEEDED all of the 2007 RFP capacity requirements is if anything TOO BIG. And over the life of the KC-X, the operational cost SAVINGS of the KC-767AT vs the KC-30 could PAY FOR THEMSELVES!

The bottom line is that the KC-767AT is MORE than what is required & Airbus/EADS don’t have anything competative. The DOD/Department of the Air Force/USAF/AMC already rejected the TOO BIG & TOO EXPENSIVE KC-30 — it only becasue of the A$$holes in Congress who INCORRECTLY thought they could “fix” what went wrong with the tanker lease by demanding a “full competition” that the KC-30 is even being considered.

***

So what is a SMALL % of PARTS of the F-35 & P-8 are built overseas?

Foreign content accounts for ~30% of the 767 AIRFRAME (as opposed to the ENTIRE AIRFRAME for the KC-30). The KC-767AT would be only %15 foreign content vs over 42% for the KC-30.

ALL Bradleys were built in Santa Clara, CA by United Defense. Nice try but thanks again for continuing to demonstrate your ignorance.

Here is your “Made in America” Boeing aircraft!

*** COMMUNIST China ***
Rudder, Vertical Fin Leading Edge, Wing to Body Panels

*** South Korea *** Wing Tips, Tail Cone

*** Australia *** Trailing Edges, Inboard Flaps

*** Japan *** Mid Fuselage, Fixed Trailing Edges, Center Wing Box Fuselage Section, Wing Boxes

*** Canada *** Wing to Body Section, Wing to Body Fairings, Aft Pylons, Main Gear Body Doors, Main Gear Wing Doors

*** England *** Main Landing Gear, Nose Landing Gear

*** France *** Aft Doors, Forward doors

*** Sweden *** Aft Cargo Door, Forward Cargo Door

*** Italy *** Mid Fuselage, Horizontal Stabilizers

*** United States ***
Nose, Rear fuselage

*** Boeing ***
Vertical fin and Assemble the foreign parts only!!!

(Compliments of The Seattle Times)
aka — A wholely owned subsidiary of Boeing

Care to BOINGINATE on the facts pf?

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

If I remember correctly the Tanker was not going to be manufactured in the US but on foriegn soil. I prefer that if NG wins a contract that the manufacturing stays in the US. We have supported other nations long enough and now due tothe weak dollar foriegn investors can undercut US firms.
Rather pay more than put more Americans on unemployment, just to give some foriegn country jobs for their people.
Reminds of when the COS Army wanted to change all berets to Black for the regular soldier, then ran out and contracted with China for it. Even though it wasn’t legal.
Everybody wants to stop farming out our work, but when it comes to the DoD want to look the other way.
As for the GAO, they are the ones who fight with the DOD over 400 dollar toillets and $25 screws. Somebody has to watch the DOD, as more retired Generals move into what they call the private sector or as most are going to companies with Govt/DOD contracts.
Somebody outside of the DOD needs to ensure Americans keep their jobs rather than a retired general or Admiral getting a high paying job with a Govt contractor.

Regardless Shelby is from the state that would benefit most from Northrup/EADS winning the contract. I have a basic problem with any military system being built by anyone outside the US. What will we outsource next? The industrial capability that allowed us to win WWII is being compromised because we are no longer manufacturing the material needed to have a strong military.
The govt can not be a cash cow and the contracts to build major systems should not be made on the basis of how many jobs it makes in how many states. American made/ american designed. period. I don’t care if the Airbus frame is more sophisticated than the Boeing. All that means is that it breaks down more. I speak as an avionics tech in the AF for 6 years where the A/C that I worked on had a MTBF-Mean Time Between Failure rate of about 4–6 hours. The shorter time that any technology has had to demonstrate that it is reliable the more it is liable to breakdown.

You guys are “at it” again. Such vituperation, my my. Cole proved himself at least legitimate when he responded to my inquiry about his interests, employment, investments, etc. pfcem remained silent to my knowledge, I don’t check every day. If that’s still true it speaks for itself. Anyway, just taking time to say I told you so in two different discussions and why is anyone suprised? This decision SHOULD be made by the next administration. The current one has done everything possible to screw it up along with McCain’s personal intervention on behalf of NG although his staff will say on behalf of world trade. So what’s the chances that a protectionist Senator from Illinois won’t make pfcem’s day? Congrats Boeing dude.

And I’m sure that the fact that Sen. Shelby’s state had the most to gain from an NG/EADS win has no bearing on his position.

I was just wondering if studies have been performed on all the a/c proposed to see if they produce any adverse turbulence to the receiver a/c? I can recall that the 757 produced unexpected and considerable wingtip vortices and requires and increase in in-trail a/c separation. [I know it’s not the same thing but something to consider.]

The acquisition process is flawed. (I should know, as I’ve worked within it for many years prior to retirement in 05.)
The process is so complex that, if really carried out “properly”, takes years to complete, insuring that the requirement is obsolete before it can be completed.

The process favors “minimum acceptable” in favor of cost, usually resulting in procurement of something that costs a bi less up front, and much more later on.

Politics is always a factor. If nothing else, politics inside the military. When the procurement amount gets to the level of the tanker program, it is a political matter, regardless of regulations, laws, or anything else. When congressional approval is required, it’s political–period.

Assuming either Nortrop/EAD’s or the Boing tanker will meet the basic requirements, the next issue is what will it take to support the A/C over it’s service life.

Given the reduced number of available tankes in the near term, due to retirement of the 135’s, it does make sense to have a higher capacity.

There is a possible requirement for a smaller “tactical” tanker. Traditionally, only the Navy has implemented a solution to this requirement, by flying smaller A/C from carriers.

We are at a point that something must be bought to fill an immediate requirement. How good or bad what is bought should determine the long term purchase.

At one time, both A/C would have been funded thru the development process to at least flyoff.

This tanker buy is a total breakdown of the acquisition system within the A/F and the DoD. It has gone on much too long, it has been influenced by too many and sadly, it pits a foreign competitor against an American competitor. The American public has been effectively hoodwinked into thinking that EADS/Airbus is somehow Northrop Grumman. N/G is there for two reasons, first to fool the American taxpayer and also to handle the classified systems that will have to be installed should AIRBUS get this contract. We have forgotten that France is NOT our friend and is an extremely poor ally at best or if at all. (Remember they would NOT allow us to over fly their country as we went after Libya for their part of the downed Pan Nam 747. France has also kicked out of their country all American Military (less those who died there giving France their independence from Hitler).

Boeing, like them or not have been building tankers for almost 50 years. They have a lot of experience in providing a quality product to the USAF. Politics should NOT be a factor in this decision. The American military can not stand to become dependant on a foreign made tanker only to have it grounded when the host country says stop building them and the necessary spares because they no longer like our foreign policy. Assembling the AIRBUS Tanker in Alabama is exactly that, assembled not made in the USA. France has shown her colors to us once, can we afford to have it happen again?

Bottom Line…Buy American, buy Boeing, a proven supplier to a very satisfied customer for many years.

“The American public has been effectively hoodwinked into thinking that EADS/Airbus is somehow Northrop Grumman.”

Ah-heh. ‘BS_Buster’ points out quite effectively that the 767 is about as “domestic” as a BMW.

*pfcem*

Tom was right!!! Invest in a good pair of kneepads. You and Cole have some interesting and well informed points but it is just plain to see that you have Boeing boots under your bed. This article is a bit ridiculous because it really misses the whole point of why Boeing should not even be considered (Darleen A. Druyun comes to mind). To make a long story short, they got the hands caught in the perverbial cookie jar BIG TIME!!! I suspect the roughly 3 billion dollar difference in the bids has allot to do with recouping “pre bid” financial obligations.

Follow the money. The money comes from Boeing.
They get a bunch of people fighting for them.
Circumventing guidelines when it serves their
purposes. Complaining about them when it serves
their purposes. Here is a short list of foreign
designs used in U.S. service. By the way this is a foreign coalition tool. FROM THE STATE DEPT.
FMTV.2,5,ton trucks. Bush’s friend in Texas bought a obsolete truck from Austria, got the
Army contract for the next 40 years./
M1 Abrams gun. Germany,Rhinehmetal./ Mk19 grenade launcher. Old Russian 30mm design.
M2 50.cal mg.Belgian FN./ MG 240.ww2 German copy./ Bazooka,German copy.Panzerfaust/. Beretta 9mm pistols,Italian design,American made. Not so good./ Almost all combat vehicles
with the exception of the Abrams and the Oshkosh trucks are heavily owned or controlled by BAE. (British Aerospace and Engineering)./ Including the HUMVEE./ Almost of our body armor
and Kevlar helmets.BAE./ The MRAPS, 1970’s designs from South Africa, parlayed from Israel, then to North Carolina./ M.Benz Jeeps
used by USMC./ Harrier-USMC./ French Helicopters used by USCG. FBI, SOCOM./ Israel,tank ammunition.satellites,reactive armor, patriot missile technology, computer programs, guidance systems, MRAPS, detection equipment, Trophy system-soon, incoming ordnance
radar, and more./ Carl Gustav ATGM.Sweden./ 40mm
orlikon, 20mm-60mm German and Swedish copies./
Freightlinner Truck Co. Owned by M.Benz. Germany./ South African MRAPS RG3./ Australian“Bushmasters“Trucks,/Canadian Strikers,/ M1 armor UK./ Humvee armor Israel./
Michelin tires, USA/France./ HET Oshkosh axles Axle Tech “International”. MTRV axles USMC truck-Irish designed Timmoney axles./ Numerous German small arms-HK etc./ German diesel engines– USMC AAV-etc./ Leopard power plants on the way./ I can go on for days. The list is very long. The U.S. State Dept. and Dept. of Defense, made a decision sometime back in the late 80’s to start procuring designs built under license. Then buying items outright. Then just forcing these items on the services as a form of Country and corporate welfare. Partly to help certain States. Sometimes to help other countries bond with us. Sometimes to get funding from spreading out the work to certain Senators States. If you notice where everything is built? It is in almost every State and country that has any political sway. Michigan being foremost. Germany and Israel as well. “Clearing throat”. Hu hum. We are trying to get France on board. Hard sell with the frogs. Turkey likes us though. Egypt too! A tank factory, A APC factory, a HUMVEE factory, and a ton of free stuff and money. Procurement policy is a nightmare. Army Tank Command is out of control. Someday they will censor all this chatter. The solders suffer in the meantime. If they only knew? Better designs are available. But certain Generals,Senators, and PEOs have some convoluted motives. Like the Striker. Case made. OUT!

I believe it’s the political process that is fundamentally flawed (and corrupt), not the acquisition process. Yes, the acq process is not perfect, and it’s the political factors that make it so.

war is just an extension of politics by other means.

Too bad, the AF tanker is fighting insurgency warfare “by other means”

How about the AF just sit back, like they’ve sort of been doing since WWII, and let the ground pounders cash in, who actually need the bucks, things being what they are?

Or does the US airbag propose that this tanker is going to help win in Iraq, and that we’re really going to take on Russia and China in a nuclear holocaust?

Come on! Cold war is over! Nothing but proxy wars from here on in, until we let the ICBMs fly, and then, it’s all over for everybody, right?

The Chinese and Russians know that too.

That was the Cold War lesson. Nobody wants it, not until we get off this polluted planet, anyway.

Maybe, we let Wall Street colonize the moon, first, with executive suits, and LockHeed and Boeing can rent office space, you know?
Then, blow the Earth up, and what the„,tax teh corpses!

For those who keep bringing up how much of the 767 is built off-shore, there is a difference in how Boeing is doing it vs. N/G. Boeing, an American company, owns the design, the build decision, and the spare parts. In time of national emergency, Boeing can be counted on to always provide spare parts. If the plane is still in production, production will continue. Because the design of the KC-30/45 is designed in France, and the build decision resides in France, and possibly a significant number of spare parts reside in France, what happens if the U.S gets into a gunfight that France disapproves of? As someone mentioned, remember what happened when we went after Libya.
P.S. Irrelevant to the USAF mission, but relevant to politics, is that despite the extensive off-shore production, the 767 will create/sustain more jobs in the U.S. than the KC-30/45

Iceman, you and Reader Bob are forgetting, as I mentioned earlier, that half the KC-135R engines were being built by Snecma in France when Operation El Dorado Canyon occurred in April 1986. There was no stoppage of engines. It would not be in France’s economic interest. Countries separate foreing policy from economic policy most of the time.

If, however, the U.S. expects foreign countries to buy our F-16s, F-15s, F-35s, airliners, Apache helicopters, M1 tanks, and so on…yet we won’t buy their products in return or share production of some parts, then economic and foreign policy begin to merge and tariffs and protectionism may occur.

BTW, pfcem, United Technologies was purchased by BAE back in 2005…one of those world economy things.

Just saw Cramer on CNBC talking about selling Spirit Aero, Rockwell Automation, Hexcel, and Goodrich because these companies are likely to be hurt by the Boeing strike. So shortsighted, selfish IAM strikes hurt other workers who make less, and other companies that support Boeing. Again, the odds of a disruption in military procurement is far, far more likely to occur due to strikes every 3 years than it is due to foreign nations sharing in production of military equipment.

Corection, BAE bought United Defense…not United Technologies. Got confused because Cramer was talking about it, too, but said it was diversified.

BTW, I don’t own EADS stock…I just happened to be channel surfing and saw Cramer holding an airliner and talking about Boeing.

Long ago, in another time, our national security requirements were well-understood. The Industrial College of the Armed Forces even had a correspondence course that detailed what the United States needed to do to maintain domestic capability in a hostile world. Hard lessons learned from WW II had been reduced to a comprehensive government policy. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve seems to be one of its last remnants — and our politicians play games with that.

Multi-national corporations now have a throttle-hold on both major parties through the contributions our political class of career politicians require to remain in office. Our representative form of government is failing. Our Founders did not contemplate that We the People would not be able to effectively choose office holders that would represent us or not have the personal honor to comply with their oaths of office. They were not professional politicians themselves.

It is time for an Internet-directed grassroots revolution through a third party — Ron Paul has just endorsed the candidate of one of those. and called for unity from the other non-major parties. Both major parties have become corrupt. We the People are the final “check and balance”. It is time to exercise our power while the Internet is still uncensored. It is insanity to stay within the major party “biopoly” and to expect different results.

This disaster of a tanker acquisition is only one of innumerable examples (as well-documented by Militor above) where our changed national policies have endangered our national security with the possibility of foreign nullification.

In the meantime it is increasingly dangerous for our aircrews and our strategic/tactical air dominance. Most likely the proxy wars will include terrorism with nuclear options. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the atoll tests all occurred without a worldwide conflagration or permanent ecological disaster. Oh, I forgot, we don’t need air-refueling capacity, we have Reapers and Predators and all future battles will be insurgencies.

klesb and other isolationists-are-us,

Not familiar with Ron Paul’s policies on Defense Acquisition. No mention made here:

http://​www​.vote​-mi​.org/​I​s​s​u​e​.​a​s​p​x​?​I​s​s​u​e​=​B​U​S​M​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​&​a​m​p​;​O​f​f​i​c​e​=​U​S​P​r​e​s​i​d​e​n​t​&​a​m​p​;​E​l​e​c​t​i​o​n​=​2​0​0​8​0​5​1​3​P​W​V​0​0​0​0​0​0​WVR

Do wonder how you believe having a third/fourth party led by guys like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader would assist our goverment in building consensus and successfully passing bills requiring a majority or greater. Last time I checked, even a more reasonable Ross Perot gave us Clinton instead of a second term Bush Sr. Imagine what our defenses might look like now were it not for the Clinton procurement holiday.

Much of Milltor’s data is false or irrelevant. For instace, would you rather still have the original 105mm cannon on the M1 tank or the German smooth bore 120mm? You aren’t happy with eh British Chobham armor on the M1 or the lives saved by MRAPs? The M2 and M240 have been around forever. Recent attempts to replace the M2 discovered it was not as easily replaced as you might believe. BAE does not control all the items mentioned. Those items that it does control tend to be good.

Ron Paul would have us stand alone in the world, never venturing outside our borders. This neglects the reality that as a group of nations, we can deter/destroy all-comers…and handle places like Afghanistan as a team. Please explain to me how we would be supporting both Iraq and Afghanistan right now were it not for our allies. Did you realize that our allies have suffered more deaths this year in Afghanistan than the U.S. has?

BS_Buster,

Nice try but you continue to show your ignorance. All those foreign PARTS only add up to ~30% of the 767 airliner. There is a MONSTEROUSLY HUGE difference from ~30% of the PARTS of an aircraft being built overseas & EVERYTHING except for the engines of an aircraft being built overseas. And there is a HUGE difference (~$9.5–10.8 billion) foreign content of the KC-767AT & KC-30 no matter how the EAD/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker continue to try to minimize it.

***

VAPOR_ONE_NINE,

Both the KC-767 (Italy & Japan) & the KC-30B (Australia) have performed extensive flight tests. At lease three KC-767 (don’t know about Italy KC-767 #2) have actually transferred fuel & at least one has done so at night. While no KC-30 has yet to transfer fuel the Australian KC-30B has done a number of dry hook-ups with its nonoperational boom & the operational boom intended for the Australian KC-30B has transferred fuel from a “surrogate” A310.

***

Militor,

Follow the money. The money comes from EADS (along with other foreign & domestic sources). They get a bunch of people fighting for them. Circumventing guidelines when it serves their purposes. Complaining about them when it serves their purposes.

***

Cole,

Still more idiocy.

BAE had zilch, zero, nada to do with the design, developement or manufacture of ANY Bradley. Hell BAE didn’t even exist until 30 November 1999. Just as NG had zilch, zero, nada to do with the design, developement or manufacture of the A330 or the only existing A330 tanker the Australian KC-30B.

The US buys PLENETY of foreign systems. The US does not expect anybody to buy anything we build but we KNOW that they will because a lot of countries can’t build it themselves.

pfcem says: “BAE had zilch, zero, nada to do with the design, develeopment or manufacture of any Bradley.…“
—————————–

I can think of $743 million reasons why you are wrong:

http://​www​.spacewar​.com/​r​e​p​o​r​t​s​/​B​A​E​_​S​e​c​u​r​e​s​_​M​a​j​o​r​_​C​o​n​t​r​a​c​t​_​F​o​r​_​B​r​a​d​l​e​y​_​V​e​h​i​c​l​e​s​_​9​9​9​.​h​tml

It is surprising that nobody in this exchange mentions the impact of outsourcing the design of a weapon system on the security requirements and the need to comply with ITAR.Also missing from this conversation is the impact on the structure of the engineering force you have in this country when you start outsourcing design and testing expertise.
Kelly Johnson would roll in his grave at the idea of designing and building the U2 outside the United States

For those who don’t understand why Boeing allows other countries to build part of their aircraft, it is called the “balance of trade”. Bowing along with the State Department’s approval, goes to these countries and says, if you buy my product (aircraft) I will let you build a portion of it to help offset the final cost to these countries. Boeing oversees the setup, build or manufacture and QA procedures to ensure they meet the Boeing and FAA requirements. Once assured these milestones are met, they give the go ahead. Now, if for some reason, these countries fail to meet the specs or stop building their portion, Boeing is prepared to step in and build them themselves. They have everything it takes to ensure production continues with minimal impact to schedules.

This assurance is not available with EADS/Airbus. They are foreign companies and our or the products they make for the American market (commercial or military) is not their primary issue. If they want to stop building the Airbus, the USAF would be screwed. With Boeing, that would never happen for many reasons, on being contractual commitment. Any contract we would have with EADS/Airbus would simply be not honored with nothing we or the USA could so about it. Politics play a big part with France and anyone who does not believe this should review France’s foreign policy to other nations over the last 50 years.

One must remember, with France, America and her allies did not liberate France, France allow America and here allies to root the Germans out of France and once done, President Degal insisted he and what was left of his army march into Paris first ahead of the American troops. Once their country was stable and rebuilt, they kicked the Americans out, lock stock and military bases! France is NOT to be trusted.

pfcem,

Thanks for the info.

“Any contract we would have with EADS/Airbus would simply be not honored with nothing we or the USA could so about it.“
———————————-
Utter nonsense.

EADS wants to get into the U.S. defense market in the worst way, far beyond this tanker. France has an unvarnished history in the engine department working with G.E. that has proven lucrative and uninterrupted for both countries.

Let’s look at this from a hypothetical buy– Boeing-only money standpoint. If Boeing wanted $15.4 billion for the first 68 KC-767, and we extrapolate that out to $18.6 for the first 68 KC-Y that pfcem says could be BWB (more research money), and then add $18 bil for the last 68 medium KC-Z…that is $52 billion…over half the USAF long-term tanker budget for just 204 aircraft. Assume Boeing sharpens its pencil on its offers for the remaining KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z aircraft, does not encounter too many strikes (12 contract negotiations over 36 years!) and sells 333 aircraft at an average of $200 million for a total of $66.6 billion.

The grand total for tankers is $118.6 billion…some $18 billion more than USAF projections for tankers, while being very generous in assuming low Boeing bids. And this pays only lip service to inflation.

Now look at the NG/EADS offer of $12.5 billion for its first 68 KC-30 aircraft. If we bought nothing but KC-30s for all 537 aircraft, we pay the higher R&D price only once. Say we get the remaining 469 KC-30 at an average of $160 million a piece (the first 68 KC-30s will cost $184 million a piece vs. Boeing’s $226 million), the total would be $12.5 billion + $75 billion = 87.5 billion.

See why that caught everyone’s attention and Sec of Defense Gates considered just looking at it from a money standpoint and scrapping many of the excessive requirements in the consideration? $118.6 billion vs. $87.5 billion.…for a more capable tanker.

But I would still submit that a split buy makes the most sense. It double the U.S. manufacturing base for tankers, increases U.S. aerospace worker competency/availability, and hedges against problems in delivery (to include strikes), cost (to include excessive strike concessions), or A/C grounding problems. Prediction: a split buy would still be cheaper than the Boeing-only cost…probably close to the original budgeted $100 billion.

If we can come up with $700 billion to rescue investors and big Wall Street firms, then we should be smart and split up our contract awards to more companies…even if it costs slightly more in the defense budget. In the long term, having more companies bidding and producing will be less costly than watching the aerospace industrial base shrink to two or three major players, who once they lose contracts, have no opportunity to bid again on similar aircraft for many decades.

There are some great thoughts among the above responses other than the silly biases about who will win the tanker competition or should, even though well-intended mostly. Give it up guys, you can’t influence it at this point. Why not turn our attention to improving processes instead of particular program outcomes that can’t be impacted?

DoDBuzz would do well to initiate a forum for badly needed new ideas about improving acquisition (as one example) and take advantage of this collective wisdom. Klesb is correct in saying we have the responsibility to bring change (excerise our power) that we can’t trust politicians and current bureaucracies to do for us and getting our ideas on the record would be a start.

I know this is idealistic. Still, some of you exhibit knowledgeable approaches and criticisms and I benefit from reading them and I think those in OSD/Military Departments could as well if redirected to more constructive topics.

Look a new tanker cost more money.…this is what all are forgetting! Just give MTV a call and have them PIMP your Tanker and turn the old into a new!

Money was spent on updating the cockpit…we change the engines…but we dont like the airframe…so lets get a new one!!! Silly and wastefull!

Cole,

Once again you show your ignorance.

REMANUFACTURING M2A2s & M3A2s to M2A3 & M3A3 standard. And all work done in York, Pennsylvania. This work (& virtually all BAE US military ground systems & most of its US military naval systems work) comes from United Defense, prior to BAE purchasing it, BAE was not involved.

Still zilch, zero, nada to do with the design, develeopment or manufacture of any Bradley. :) BAE didn’t even exist when the Bradley designed, develeoped & manufactured.

***

I LOVE how you use completely BS made up EADS/KC-30 favorable numbers for what is a LESS CAPABLE TANKER FLEET (and ignore the MUCH higher operational & back end costs of the KC-30)! Here is a HINT, the KC-X is/was projected to cost $35–40 billion to develope & procure 179 tankers (4 SDD & 175 operational) yet the MPLCC for BOTH offers (for only 25 years even though the KC-X is supposed to be in service for 40 years) was over $100 billion AND THE BOEING BID WAS LOWER…

A split buy makes NO SENSE except if it is the only way to get new tanker because all these EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers won’t give up until the USAF is FORCED to take the KC-30 it REJECTED. A split buy not only struddles us with the neither-nor KC-30 but forces us to not only pay for the developement of the KC-767AT but the KC-30 as well & since there is NO WAY Congress is going to fund more than 20 tankers a year significantly increases the procurements cost since NG/EADS & Boeing “need” to build ~15 per year or the price significantly increases. Plus all the operational NIGHTMARES of a fleet of KC-135R, KC-10A, KC-767AT & KC-30, eventually becoming KC-135R, KC-10A, KC-767AT, KC-30 & KC-Y and finally KC-767AT, KC-30, KC-Y & KC-Z.

The KC-30 is a poor KC-135 replacement & a poor KC-10 replacment and in NO way removes the need for the KC-Y &/or KC-Z. If anything it makes the need for the KC-Y & KC-Z GREATER due to the KC-30’s inability to the KC-135’s job as well as the KC-135 (too big & too heavy) OR the KC-10’s job as well as the KC-10 (not enough fuel capacity).

pfcem: “REMANUFACTURING M2A2s & M3A2s to M2A3 & M3A3 standard. And all work done in York, Pennsylvania. This work (& virtually all BAE US military ground systems & most of its US military naval systems work) comes from United Defense, prior to BAE purchasing it, BAE was not involved.“
——————————–
You missed that the new buys and remanufacturing entails many processes of original manufacture. Armor and other upgrades are also included and will be expanded in the future as FCS and other upgrades are spun out.

That work continues near Texarkana and in York, PA is the key point. Foreign acquisition and partnership with U.S. companies is often seamless. The world does not end when companies go mult-national. U.S. workers still work. The local economy is still enhanced. Engineers still design…but now with the help of trusted overseas experts to broaden the engineering base. That assists our companies since so few Americans are going to school for engineering relative to other nations, and babyboomer engineers are retiring.

The aquisition process is simple — the user submits a requirement, the aquisition agent expresses that to developers, the developers offer proposals, the agent makes sure the offers meet the requirements, and the lowest bid is accepted. Any procurement deviations from that violate public law.
The blame for this sour source selection can squarely be placed on the user for either not clearly stating requirements (this could be a result of requirements creep) or not holding the acquisition agent to task for not clearly stating those requirements (sometimes the procureors think they know more about the requirements than the user or they are steered by “friendly” developers).

Google: U.S.-French Commercial Ties, for CRS Report RL 34398. On page CRS-5 read:

“France, as a member of the European Union, adopts the same trade policy as
other members of the EU.9 By sharing common tariff and non-tariff policies with
other EU members and by adopting EU-wide regulations and standards, there are few
trade disputes that can be considered U.S.-French bilateral disagreements per se.
Most U.S. trade and investment with France, dominated by multinational companies
and intra-firm trade, is non-controversial.”

France and Airbus do not have the sole say in EADS. In any case, no evidence exists that France would drop the guillotine on itself by ceasing production and failing to honor contracts. In contrast, Japan might well object to using its bases to attack China if it invaded Taiwan, or North Korea attacked to the south. Would it stop KC-767 production?

Nobody believes Japan would stop producing KC-767 sections over disagreements with U.S. forces stationed there and nuclear ships operating in the vicinity? But it is just as feasible as Reader Bob’s scenario (apologies for overreaction, forgot who you were). It’s highly unlikely that Boeing could rapidly pick up the slack and assume production if its Asian partners ceased work.

Neither the French or Japanese disruption is likely. Strike disruptions and delays, in contrast, are very likely, with strikes in 3 out of 6 of the last contracts. Plus, because the U.S. taxpayer must pick up the tab if Boeing concedes large pay increases, I’m trying to fathom how a jump in average worker pay from 556K to $76K in this contract, and similar increases in four (don’t forget SPEEA) other contract negotiations over the life of the KC-X program, would not make Boeing an expensive exclusive DoD and taxpayer partner.

In the second go around, the DoD wanted to separate initial acquisition cost from MPLCC because it’s unfair to directly compare current dollar acquisition expense to inflated dollar MPLCC fuel cost over 40 years…especially using unrealistic max gross weight fuel burn rate.

Real world differences between the aircraft carrying identical normal loads is no doubt more like 12%…not 24%. That turns the claimed $30 billion difference into just $15 billion…inflated dollars.

Bet that 25 split buy aircraft purchased per year to build 450 aircraft in 18 years would show far less actual dollars spent than extending KC production at 15 per year over 30 years. Don’t forget all those inflated Boeing strike dollars after all. What is the inflation rate of increasing worker pay from $56K to $75K pay over 3 years…oh forgot…they turned that down. ;)

So if you want the DoD to compare inflated fuel expense dollars, have them compare alternative acquisition strategy dollars spent over 18 years (less $) versus dollars spent over 36 years (more $)…

I disagree with Sen Shelby that the “acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed”. As a whole, the process is sound. However, it does need tweaking. Some of the compliance sub-processes, that served the Air Force so well for many years, were eliminated by Acquisition Reform efforts. They need to be put back in place, especially since the current workforce is so inexperienced. The basic problem with the tanker acquisition has more to do with people not following source selection policy and procedure. The improprieties highlighted by GAO were the result of human error (intentional or unintentional) and the compliance sub-processes were not in place to catch them.

Cole,

No, the point is that BAE had zilch, zero, nada to do with the design, develeopment or manufacture of any Bradley. And the ONLY relation BAE has to the Bradley is that it purchased United Defense. The work is still done by the same United Defense workers at the same United Defense facilities, the difference now is that their paychecks & the facilities signage say ‘BAE Systems Ground Systems’ instead of ‘United Defense’.

***

No, in the THIRD go around, Mr. Young wanted to separate initial acquisition cost from MPLCC so that he could give greater weight to developement & procurements costs since as EVERYONE knows, the MPLCC for the KC-30 is more than that of the KC-767AT.

Noboby ever used max gross weight fuel burn rate. What Conklin & de Decker did do is analyze the fuel costs of the 767-200ER & A330-200 flying commercial mission profiles at or near their maximum gross take-off weight. The result being that the A330-200 burns an AVERAGE of 417 gal (2,794 lbs) MORE fuel per hour. As I said before tankers don’t fly commercial mission profiles & NEITHER the KC-767AT or the KC-30 will typically fly tanker missions at their maximum gross take-off weight (there simply is NO demand for that much fuel per tanker & for the KC-767AT a full load of 202,000 lbs of fuel is close to 20,000 lbs BELOW MTOW). So as I said before, the differences between commercial mission profiles & tanker mission profiles means that numbers themselves are not the same BUT the fact STILL remains that the KC-30 WILL burn more fuel every hour than the KC-767AT while flying the SAME mission. AND since a fleet of KC-30s will have to fly LONGER hours from airfields farther away, it would burn still MORE fuel just to fill the SAME missions.

Where the hell do you get that BS made up 12% from?

It doesn’t matter if buying 25 tankers a year for 18 years is less expensive overall than buying 15 tankers a year for 30 years. Congress WILL NOT release the amount of funds needed EACH YEAR to buy 25 tankers. This is the same BS that caused people to not understand the tanker lease. All they saw is that it was the higher total cost while ignoring (or just plain not knowing) that it cost A LOT less both up front and each year but spread the total cost over more years.

pfcem said:“No, in the THIRD go around, Mr. Young wanted to separate initial acquisition cost from MPLCC so that he could give greater weight to developement & procurements costs since as EVERYONE knows, the MPLCC for the KC-30 is more than that of the KC-767AT.

Noboby ever used max gross weight fuel burn rate.
————————–
Baloney. The Conklin study specifically cites using both max take off and/or max landing weights which are much higher in both cases for the 330–200 resulting in the fictitiously higher 24% greater fuel burn.
——————————

pfcem continues:“What Conklin & de Decker did do is analyze the fuel costs of the 767-200ER & A330-200 flying commercial mission profiles at or near their maximum gross take-off weight. The result being that the A330-200 burns an AVERAGE of 417 gal (2,794 lbs) MORE fuel per hour. As I said before tankers don’t fly commercial mission profiles & NEITHER the KC-767AT or the KC-30 will typically fly tanker missions at their maximum gross take-off weight (there simply is NO demand for that much fuel per tanker & for the KC-767AT a full load of 202,000 lbs of fuel is close to 20,000 lbs BELOW MTOW). So as I said before, the differences between commercial mission profiles & tanker mission profiles means that numbers themselves are not the same BUT the fact STILL remains that the KC-30 WILL burn more fuel every hour than the KC-767AT while flying the SAME mission.“
———————————-
Thanks for admitting that the study uses commerical mission profiles with no bearing on a tanker, which flies much of its mission at lower airspeeds while aerial refueling. It also will not take off with full fuel if the mission does not require it, unlike an airliner that hopefully is always close to a full passenger and luggage load.

Boeing no longer lists the Conklin study on its website but I found it and they cleverly bury a few key facts deep in the study. They start with a lowest value of $130 a barrel which oil has already dropped well below. They correlate that barrel of oil to $3.83 a gallon, then use an annual inflation rate of 5.69% over 40 years so that in the last year, the USAF is paying a whopping $33.14 a gallon.

Now you know why I said it is unfair to compare KC-X procurement costs in current dollars to fictious MPLCC fuel costs 40 years from now. If you apply current dollar costs across all 40 years, the difference between the fictitious 767 Conklin fuel burn rate and the more fictitious 330–200 fuel burn rate at the not-even-close-to-reality 24% more fuel burn rate for the 330–200, results in a TODAY dollar difference of $ 8.59 billion (2.24 billion gallons x $3.83) which is not remotely close to the Conklin-quoted $30.7 billion using inflated dollars.

Is the 5.69% inflation rate per year realistic? Conklin cleverly picked 21 years that began when oil prices were low and ended at the current peak which results in the appearance of the higher annual inflation rate when comparing a low 1988 fuel cost to the high 2008 fuel peak.

Don’t believe me? Found an Airbus study that showed how much fuel contributed to airliner expenses over the past multiple decades. In 1982, fuel was a whopping 29% of airliner expenses but it dropped to 22% in 1986 and then to 14% in 1988 when fuel prices were low. It continued at a relatively low 10%-15% from 1988 through 2002 when gas prices started to climb to the point where today, fuel constitutes a much higher percentage of total costs.

See how easy it is for “independent” paid consultants to manipulate reality.

Found this non-Airbus study that shows the last decade+. Note how fuel as a percentage of actual expenses starts to climb to today’s much higher levels as fuel prices rose during the wars.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2007%20Documents/Expense%20Related/Fuel/Fuel%20Expense%20as%20Percentage%20of%20Total%20Expense%20(Excluding%20Transport%20Related%20Expense)%2007.htm

Prior to 1995 and going back to 1982, it was never any higher than 14% except during Desert Storm (1991) when it was 15%. This is a spike that will drop as demand drops (more fuel efficient cars and airliners),as the wars stabilize/end, and as we drill more and use alternate sources of energy. A 5.69% annual rate of climb in fuel prices is utterly bogus.

Cole,

Your reading comprehension must be less than a 5th grader &/or you are an outright fraud who CAN NOT admit the truth.

NOBODY EVER DID USE MTOW FUEL BURN RATE!

The Conklin & de Decker SPECIFICALLY said ‘flying commercial mission profiles at or near their maximum gross take-off weight’ AND SPECIFICALLY said ‘average per hour’. THAT IS NOT fuel burned at MTOW but the AVERAGE BURNED for an ENTIRE COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILE.

Good God, Conklin & de Decker did THREE STUDIES! The 1st (Nov 07) determined the fuel usage. The 2nd (Mar 08) determined the cost at $100 & $125 per barrel. The 3rd (Jun 08) determined the cost at $130, $140 & $150 per barrel. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!

The Conklin & de Decker costs ARE IN CONSTANT YEAR DOLLARS.

No I don’t believe you. You don’t have the 1st clue what you are talking about (which you CONTINUE to prove with each & every post). ALL Airliner expenses have increased over the past multiple decades! AND NOT ALL AT THE SAME RATE!!! So comparing the % of fuel cost to total expenses IN NO WAY gives ANY indication of the ACTUAL cost of fuel. And the 5.69% fuel cost increase is an AVERAGE, some years it was higher, some years it was lower.

HEY!

How about an F 33&1/3-plays an old song by Queen, “I wantit All„„I want it ALll„,”

and then the New SUper Tasnker by Anhasuer Busch, since it’s no longer an American company, either-=

get it?

Keep it up, and pretty soon, nobody’s going to have to conquor us, they’ll just sell us to somebody else.

pfcem:“NOBODY EVER DID USE MTOW FUEL BURN RATE!“
——————————-
I see that you need to be spoon-fed. Here is the link to the study which I can no longer find on the Boeing site:

http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​3​7​3​7​2​7​4​/​B​7​6​7​-​a​n​d​-​A​3​3​0​-​F​u​e​l​-​C​o​n​s​-​R​e​p​o​r​t​-​J​u​n​e​-26

Look at the title of the June 26,2008 version of the study. See pfcem see…the analysis is based on “commercial service when operating at high take-off gross weight.”

Go pfcem go, to page 3 and read the bulleted comment just above the chart:

“The additional fuel consumption for a 179-aircraft fleet of A330-200 when compared with B767-200ER where both fly similar commercial mission profiles, both fly 750 hours per year and both are operated at their maximum take-off gross weight at the start of each mission profile and/or their maximum landing weight at the conclusion of each mission profile is shown in the following table.”

Look pfcem. Your naughty friends attempt to have the aircraft take-off and land without burning or transferring any fuel…otherwise how does it land at max landing weight at the conclusion of each mission profile?

Oh that’s right…this is a commercial mission profile. All those fat pax and bags stay on board. No fuel is transferred to other aircraft to make it lighter and burn less fuel as the mission progresses. Bad Conklin bad. You could have kicked passengers and luggage out the door to simulate fuel transfer and you could have slowed the aircraft down to 275 knots thus burning less fuel for an hour or so to more closely resemble a tanker mission.

Take this pill for your attention deficit disorder, little pfcem, because Daddy is going to use a big word: distortion. That’s kind of like when little pfcem tells a fib and daddy has to spank him.

Now little pfcem, while still on page 3 look at the table, that thing with boxes and numbers. Look pfcem. See the average gallons per hour that Conklin used for each aircraft. These are based on take-off “and/or” landing at max weight which means your cited average fuel burn is higher than normal. That higher average is what leads to the claimed 313,210 gallon difference for one of each aircraft flying 750 hours for a year.

When daddy’s car is fully loaded with pfcem and mommy and all the other kids and all our bags,our car gets only 15 mpg. But because daddy steps on it, the fuel mileage drops to 13 mpg. When daddy drops you 8 kids, mommy, and the bags off at soccer practice and then drives for an hour at 40 mph instead of 80 mph, daddy’s car gets 27 mpg. When you average the two segments of the trip that are equidistant, daddy is happy that he gets 20 mpg instead of 13 mpg when gas is $4 a gallon.

But wait, there’s more. Daddy could have bought a 8 passenger minvan instead of a 10 passenger van…because most of the time we don’t carry mommy, little pfcem and 7 passengers. That would have meant better gas mileage for sure. But daddy thinks mommy would not have been happy if he told her and little pfcem they had to stay home because there was not enough room in the car for twice weekly trips to soccer practice.

Now pay attention pfcem because daddy is going to use big numbers. Remember that 313,210 gallon difference that Conklin claimed (distorted)?:

313,210 gals x 40 years = 12,528,384 gallons difference for one aircraft flying 750 hrs per year.

But for 179 KC-X aircraft they calculate:

12,528,384 gals x 179 aircraft = 2,242,580,721 gallons difference. Holy big-number batman, that’s more numbers than little pfcem has fingers and toes to count on!

Now let’s use the $3.83 price per gallon that Conklin derived from $130 per barrel (price is currently closer to $107 per barrel):

$3.83/gal x 2,242,580,721 gallons = $8,589,084,161.43 in TODAY’S dollars, But naughty Conklin did not show that number. Naughty Conklin showed the number on page 6 of $30.7 billion.

Naughty Conklin and deDecker applied a 5.69% annual inflation rate to the price of fuel over 40 years…because they chose to focus on a 21 year period beginning in 1988 when fuel was low relative to today…instead of the 14 years through 2001 when gas was at or below normal 3% inflation, or instead of comparing the price of gas to 1982 when gas was similarly pricey compared to other products, goods, and services.

Bad Conklin bad. What if Daddy applied inflation to the price of tankers purchased 12 years from now…or better yet 36 years from now when the USAF will have only replaced 450 tankers at a low 15 produced per year. Daddy could say that the USAF will not spend $100 billion in TODAY’S dollars to replace its tankers. Instead it will spend $300 billion! That’s because the Boeing tankers we buy in 2050 will cost $600 million each instead of $200 million each today. Little pfcem, that’s called dishonesty, distortion, and marketing. Bad Conklin bad, and bad boy, pfcem, for agreeing that analysis methodology makes sense.
——————————

pfcem: “The Conklin & de Decker SPECIFICALLY said ‘flying commercial mission profiles at or near their maximum gross take-off weight’ AND SPECIFICALLY said ‘average per hour’. THAT IS NOT fuel burned at MTOW but the AVERAGE BURNED for an ENTIRE COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILE.“
———————————
But little pfcem, how can the aircraft land and take-off at max gross weight for landing and/or take-off. That’s what they said. Will Mr. Tanker take-off and land at max gross weight. No pfcem, because it will burn and transfer fuel which makes it lighter and makes it burn less fuel overall.

Remember pfcem, that daddy’s car gets much better gas mileage when carrying and dropping off little pfcem and his little friends. But if daddy carries slim mommy and some of mommy’s fatter relatives for hours and hours, daddy’s gas mileage is gonna suck. Little pfcem, daddy’s van cannot magically not burn any of the 50 gallons in the fuel tank while traveling hundreds of miles. It’s also not true to say that Daddy’s van will get the same mileage carrying mommy’s fat relatives for hundreds of miles at 80 mph vs. dropping most of them off halfway through the trip and driving a lot at 40 mph.…just as Mr. Tanker transfers lots of fuel weight, burns more, and flies at 275 knots to dispense fuel.
——————————-

pfcem:“Good God, Conklin & de Decker did THREE STUDIES! The 1st (Nov 07) determined the fuel usage. The 2nd (Mar 08) determined the cost at $100 & $125 per barrel. The 3rd (Jun 08) determined the cost at $130, $140 & $150 per barrel. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!“
———————————
Little pfcem, daddy went to West Point. He wasn’t real smart there, and was an enlisted combat engineer who went to the prep school to get in, but he finished about mid-class. Daddy is worried that little pfcem would have trouble in junior college let alone a military academy. Daddy thinks Mr. Conklin and deDecker are smarter than daddy and little pfcem…and are smart enough to distort a study in a manner to favor their paying client.

Daddy also wonders if little pfcem ever spent a day in the military. He sure knows a lot of tanker generals and pilots to be living in Billings, Montana. Do tankers support the missiles at Malstrom AFB little pfcem? Does anything fly there pfcem except eagles and their droppings deposited on little pfcem’s head?
———————————–

“pfcem:“The Conklin & de Decker costs ARE IN CONSTANT YEAR DOLLARS.“
———————————-
Yes, they are quoted in constant $30.7 billion TODAY dollars to make it sound high. But that number was calculated using a FUTURE 40 years of excessive 5.69% inflation resulting in gas prices of $33.14 dollars/gal in the 40th year.

Daddy’s sure that if you multiply the highly unrealistic quoted difference between KC-X aircraft of 2.24 billion gallons by the current more realistic $3.83/gallon…that the TODAY’S dollar difference between aircraft is only $8.6 billion…not $30.7 billion. Daddy is also sure that there is nowhere near a 2.24 billion gallon difference because both aircraft will fly much lighter most of the time and will burn less overall and in difference. Daddy also is highly suspicious of a 5.69% inflation rate for fuel.

If Daddy, for the sake of an argument, compares TODAY’S dollars $8.6 billion fuel difference to the procurement difference for 68 aircraft of $3 billion, daddy is inclined to believe that by the time you buy the other 111 KC-X aircraft, the procurement difference between aircraft would be about $8.6 billion too.

But daddy also believes that there is nowhere close to a 2.23 billion gallon difference between the two aircraft in a tanker profile instead of a commercial one at max gross take-off weight and flight at high weight and speed throughout the profile. He also believes that Mr. Tanker General and pilot would prefer a 10 passenger van to an 8 passenger one…despite what little pfcem claims.
—————————
pfcem: “No I don’t believe you. You don’t have the 1st clue what you are talking about (which you CONTINUE to prove with each & every post). ALL Airliner expenses have increased over the past multiple decades! AND NOT ALL AT THE SAME RATE!!! So comparing the % of fuel cost to total expenses IN NO WAY gives ANY indication of the ACTUAL cost of fuel. And the 5.69% fuel cost increase is an AVERAGE, some years it was higher, some years it was lower.“
——————————–
Little pfcem, you shouldn’t chew on that lead paint or hold your breath until you get your way, as it tends to kill brain cells. Feel free to read the big distorted words and numbers in the Conklin study. The $33.14 gas price is listed on page 6. Also little pfcem, check out these links:

http://​inflationdata​.com/​i​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​c​h​a​r​t​s​/​O​i​l​/​I​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​_​A​d​j​_​O​i​l​_​P​r​i​c​e​s​_​C​h​a​r​t​.​htm

Does that resemble 5.69% inflation in most of the years. See the spike in 1982 and during Desert Storm and OEF/OIF? But also note the years between 1988 and 2001.

Also see this:

http://​inflationdata​.com/​i​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​c​h​a​r​t​s​/​O​i​l​/​G​a​s​o​l​i​n​e​_​i​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​_​c​h​a​r​t​.​htm

And this:

http://​inflationdata​.com/​i​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​/​I​n​f​l​a​t​i​o​n​_​R​a​t​e​/​H​i​s​t​o​r​i​c​a​l​_​O​i​l​_​P​r​i​c​e​s​_​T​a​b​l​e​.​asp

I’m through with this B.S for now.

Cole,

Like I said, your reading comprehenision is SEVERYELY lacking.


To determine this impact, an analysis was accomplished, using published data, to calculate the
additional fuel consumption and the resulting extra cost incurred by a fleet of 179 Airbus 330–
200 when compared with the Boeing 767-200ER where both fly similar commercial mission
profiles, both fly 750 hours per year over a 40 year service life and both are operated at or
near their maximum take-off gross weight.

THAT IS NOT FUEL BURN AT MTOW, IT IS FUEL BURN FOR THE ENTIRE FLIGHT!!! It even said AVERAGE FUEL BURN!!! NOT FUEL BURN AT MTOW!!!

HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO SAY THERE IS A DIFFERENSE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILE & A TANKER MISSION PROFILE!!! Guess what, tanker mission profiles burn MORE FUEL than commercial mission profiles. Airliners (their airframes & engines) are SPECIFICALLY designed for maximum effeciency for commercial mission profiles. tanker mission are flown at the wrong speeds (including many more speed changes) & altitude.

Good GOD, the PURPOSE of the Conklin & de Decker was to determine the impact of the KC-30’s higher fuel consumption & the rising cost of fuel. NOT TO DETERMINE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF FUEL THE KC-X WOULD BURN. The only DISTORTION is the BS of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself TRYING to fool people into thinking that the Conklin & de Decker studies were something they were not. Conklin & de Decker DID NOT try to hind that it used commercial mission profiles, on the contrary is made a SPECIFIC point it point that out. Afterall fuel burn numbers for commercial mission profiles ARE READILY AVAILABLE! Those for tanker mission profiles ARE NOT.

The price of fuel IS NOT A CONSTANT, it has been increasing at an average rate of 5.69% annual for the past 21 years. It is PERFECTLY REASONSABLE to when calculating the cost of fuel over the next 40 years to use an anualy cost increase of 5.69% — MUCH MUCH MUCH more realistice that assuming it will remain constant.

I have been to many USAF & US ANG bases all across the western half of the US from Minnesota to New Mexico to California (all states were I have lived &/or worked). I have never lived in Billings, Montana. And yes tankers operated from Malmstrom AFB for DECADES. The KC-135Rs which had operated there were relocated [according to sources on the internet USAF wing to California & ANG wing to Florida] in the mid/late 90’s & the “airfield” has been nonoperational ever since.

A) Glad to see DoD Buzz is back up and running –Congrats Colin.

B)ITAR Regulations. The point people fail to realize is that by the ignorance of the USAF contracting with NG/EADS/AIRBUS the US is contradicting and ignoring ITAR strict regulations put in place to protect our intel from foreign countries. Handing over our technology to foreign countries is prohibited for a reason, and the USAF somehow skipped that point. Sec. Gates shaking up procurement was the best possible scenario, although this deal did not end up as well as we would have wanted.
C)The hose reel design Boeing chose is superior to FRL through NG (a guise at best)

D)USAF procurement did not take into consideration that they “changed up” the SPEC’s of the planes (Boeing vs. Airbus) so it was never an even “playing/bidding” field when all was said and done. The USAF decided they needed a “larger plane” after production was already in progress for the Italian Air Force and the 767 was approved by them?

We need Sec Gate’s attention on this one.

Ps — PCFM is correct about the flight tests. Italy is in test stages.….I don’t have intel on Australia but definitely we should be able to deliver to Italy by January (Boeing tankers)

pfcem’s example of “educating oneself” and pointing out others “ignorance”: “Like I said, your reading comprehenision is SEVERYELY lacking.“
———————————-
Geez, I know you know this…and you know what I meant…but let me spell it out so you can’t play dumb. If aircraft start out at max gross weight and land at max gross landing weight, their average fuel burn will be higher than if they take off, cruise en route, and land at far lighter weights.

If you can show me data that flying at a suboptimal flight level at 275 knots uses less fuel than an optimal flight level at mach .83, I may concede that point. I know you can’t show me data that take-off and landing at max gross will burn the same overall fuel as take-off and landing at far lower weights due to proper flight planning/loading of required mission fuel and fuel transfer in flight.

No airliner kicks 50K lbs of pax and luggage out of the plane at altitude to reduce weight as occurs when a tanker transfers 50K of fuel. You honesty claim that a commercial flight that keeps that 50K extra lbs the entire flight is more fuel efficient than a tanker mission that sheds that weight?

If your KC-767 takes off with 125K lbs of fuel added to its 184K empty weight for a fairly short distance/time mission and 50K fuel transfer, the result is a take-off weight of 309K…some 86K below max take-off weight.

If the KC-30 takes off with 135K of fuel added to its 265,700 lb empty weight for the same mission, the take-off weight is 400,700 lbs…some 113,765 lbs less than max gross weight. Which aircraft is further from its max gross take-off weight to fly the same mission?

The claimed 417 gallon per hour difference between KC-candidate aircraft shrinks considerably in the lighter mode.

Note a 118,765 lb difference between the KC-30 and KC-767 max take off weight. Note that in the above scenario the difference in aircraft t/o weight is just 91,700 lbs. The KC-30’s fuel burn in these typical fuel offload scenarios will be closer to the 767 and nowhere near the fuel burn at max gross.

If KC-X aircraft fly only 100 hours annually with a start take-off weight at max gross and the remaining 650 of its 750 hours a year in a far lighter mode…the overall fuel burn AND difference in fuel burn with the 767 is far less than the Conklin and deDecker’s study implies.
———————————
pfcem: “The price of fuel IS NOT A CONSTANT, it has been increasing at an average rate of 5.69% annual for the past 21 years. It is PERFECTLY REASONSABLE to when calculating the cost of fuel over the next 40 years to use an anualy cost increase of 5.69% — MUCH MUCH MUCH more realistice that assuming it will remain constant.“
————————
Are you serious? Did you look at the fuel inflation price charts I handed you. Have you looked at the price of a barrel of oil today…and what it will do if the economy continues going south and folks drive less?

The entire notion that the DoD should compare current acquisition costs in current dollars to future fuel costs expressed in today’s dollars is ludicrous. At least if you use $3.83 as the constant dollar amount to measure future fuel costs, you get a better perspective of actual life cycle fuel cost. And the Conklin and deDecker claimed difference of 2.2 billion gallons when turned into a more realistic 1.5 billion gallon difference would mean that future fuel costs expressed in today’s constant dollars would be only about $5.745 billion.

Now lets consider the fuel saved by using the larger A330 tanker in place of multiple C-17 missions. My bet is that A330 vs. 767 fuel burn difference disappears entirely.

Cole,

Let me spell it out for you.

CONTRARY to what you have posted & CONTINUE to falsely promote that the Conklin & de Decker STUDIES are/were deceitful/misleading/invalid. It is quite CLEAR from both the Title, Summary & Intoduction from ALL THREE studies that they are an analysis of Boeing 767-200ER & Airbus 330–200 flying COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILES in order to DEMONSTRATE how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel cost of operating them at the rate & for the amount of time the KC-X is projected to do so!

No matter how you want to try & spin it a larger (193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″ x 16′ 6″ vs 159′ 2″ x 156′ 1″ x 18′ 6″) & heavier (~265,000 lbs vs ~185,000 lbs operational empty) aircraft IS going to burn more fuel. Hell, even if a A330-200 takes off with “only” 125,000 lbs of fuel & a 767-200LRF takes off with 200,000 lbs of fuel the A330-200 will burn MORE fuel every hour than the 767-200LRF.

Yes I looked at the charts, guess what, they PROVE my point. Fuel price IS NOT CONSTANT!!! It would be ABSOLUTELY GREAT if we could buy 750 hrs for 40 years worth of fuel ALL AT ONCE but we can’t. So when we buy fuel 10 years from now is will cost more than it does today, 10 years later it will cost more still & so on & so on. You CAN NOT honestly calculate 40 years worth of fuel cost with a constant $3.83 per gallon! Even IF inflation were 0% for the next 40 years, the price WILL NOT remain at a constant (or average) $3.83 per gallon.

NOBODY EVER SAID ANYBODY SHOULD COMPARE ACQUSITION COSTS IN CURRENT DOLLARS TO FUTURE FUEL COSTS EXPRESSED IN TODAY’S DOLLARS! Such is the typical BS EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have to come up with. What you DO have to do, however, is compare the TOTAL MPLCC for the KC-30 & the KC-767AT to determine just how much each will REALLY COST you. That means not only acquisition costs & LIFETIME fuel costs but development costs, & ALL SORTS OF LIFETIME OPERATIONAL COSTS.

THE KC-767AT CAN REPLACE C-17 MISSIONS!!! And what you & other EADS/KC-30 Kool-AId drinkers CONTINUE to fail to recognize is that the KC-X IS A TANKER. It will fly MANY TIMES more tanker missions than it will cargo missions & JUST LIKE TANKER MISSIONS will carry the SAME AMOUNT OF PAYLOAD most of the time REGUARDLESS of whether it is a KC-30 or KC-767AT & MOST OF THE TIME said payload will be LESS than the full capacity of the KC-767AT.

Hey all you people, do not forget about one important thing. China is one of the leading manufactures of conterfit parts in the world. How would we know if China did not put conterfit parts into the KC-767. We have all seen in the past few years China is capable of doing anything. Look at the last problem with the baby milk. You really want them building parts for our military aircraft? Remeber the new president of France likes the America.

pfcem said: “Let me spell it out for you.“
————————————
Hee, hee, hee.

That’s the problem buddy. The quality of your spelling parallels the efficacy of your arguments. But you sure can use the caps key!

Later.

Cole,

No, the “problem” is that there simply are not enough VALID pro-EADS/KC-30 &/or anti-Boeing/KC-767AT arguments so EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have to make shit up about, mischaracterize & TRY to discredit Boeing/KC-767AT supporters by harking on typing/spelling errors because they CAN’T counter the pro-Boeing/KC-767AT &/or anti-EADS/KC-30 arguments.

I had already said WAY BACK IN MARCH, when the SECOND Conklin & de Decker study was released that it (JUST AS IT SAID IT DID) compared 767-200ER & A330-200 AIRLINERS flying COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILES in order to DEMONSTRATE how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel cost of operating them at the rate & for the amount of time the KC-X is projected to do so! I made it CLEAR WAY BACK THEN that the total $ amount was not an accurate indication of the ACTUAL $ amount fuel would cost for the KC-X BUT that the Conklin & de Decker studies DO demonstrate how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel adds up to A LOT of money over the life of the KC-X.

I see Pfcem still has his face buried in Boeing’s crotch

And pfcem still isn’t able to see that an Airbus 330–200 may guzzles 24% more than B767-200ER but carries over 30% more passengers in cases proposed by the Conklin & de Decker “study”.

A KC-767 can carry 19 463L pallets. A KC-45 32 pallets.

But everybody can imagine pfcem’s reply to these facts.

MHalblaub,

BS, I can see that the A330-200/KC-30 CAN carry more (& that in the Conklin & de Decker 767-200ER vs A330-200 AIRLINERS studies that it does) but it is IRRELAVANT. Contrary to what EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers want people to believe, the Conklin & de Decker studies are only to DEMONSTRATE how the KNOWN & UNDENIABLE higher fuel consumption of the A330-200/KC-30 (EVEN WHEN CARRYING THE SAME PAYLOAD AS THE 767-200LRF/KC-767AT) & the changing price of fuel effects fuel costs over the life of the KC-45 — NOT to say exactly HOW MUCH the cost/cost difference between the KC-30 & KC-767AT would ACTUALLY BE. EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers conveniently ignor that I pointed that out when the studies were first released to the public. I have already said TIME & TIME & TIME AGAIN that the KC-45 (whether it be a KC-767AT or a KC-30) will operate MUCH DIFFERENTLY than a commercial airliner. MOST of the time it will carry the SAME payload (which will be LESS than the full capacity of the KC-767AT) requardless of whether it is a KC-767AT or a KC-30 & that its flight profile (when operating as a tanker — which it will do the VAST MAJORITY of the time) will burn MORE fuel per hour than a commercial airliner.

So what if the KC-30 (not KC-45 yet & if the DOD/Department of the Air Force listens to the USAF/AMC/tanker generals & crews it won’t be) can carry 32 pallets vs 19 for the KC-767AT?. We are SUPPOSED to be buying a MEDIUM TANKER to replace the KC-135!!! In the REAL WORLD the KC-767AT won’t carry a full load of 19 pallets all that often much less the KC-30 carrying ANY MORE than what the KC-767AT would carry. There is NO NEED to carry 19 pallets (much less 32) in a MEDIUM TANKER.

Conklin & de Decker “study” operates with for commercial near Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and near Maximum Design Landing Weight (MLW).

MTOW for a A330-200 is about 500,000 lb.
The specific Operating Empty Weight (OEW) is about 273,000 lb. Let’s fill this aircraft with 300 PAX with 250 lb weight each (luggage incl.). The aircraft guzzles about 100,000 lb fuel and lands at 400,000 lb MLW but still with 50,000 lb of fuel inside the tanks.

MTOW for B767-200ER is about 400 k lb but MLW is about 300 k lb. So MLW is 75% of MTOW but it’s about 80% for A330.

So the Conklin & de Decker “study” compares operations that rarely exits and compares different cases. Just guess why Conklin & de Decker didn’t compare such things like fuel consumptions vs payload and range.

Just to remind everybody. At introduction KC-135 was the biggest tanker available. Now even a 767 was said to be to big. Why not use a KC-757 or a KC-737?

MHalblaub,

LOL…

AGAIN, “Fuel Consumption Analysis of the
Boeing 767-200ER and Airbus 330–200
in Commercial Service when operated
at High Take-off Gross Weight…”

Why? BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF READILY AVAILABLE DATA FOR 767-200ER & Airbus 330–200 IN COMMERCIAL SERVICE WHEN OPERATED AT HIGH TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT!

Why not KC-757 or KC-737? Because neither would have a fuel capacity of even 100,000 lbs…

GI Joe wants to buy a truck he plans to keep for 40 years.

He can buy part (68/179ths)of a very nice larger truck for $25K or he can buy part (68/179ths)of a smaller model for $30,800. The smaller truck gets 25 mpg so it burns 600 gallons of fuel a year to drive 15,000 miles. The larger truck gets 20 mpg so it uses 750 gallons to drive the same distance. Of course that is based on carrying a full load of cargo. When they both carry reduced cargo, the larger cheaper plane gets 23 mpg and the smaller plane gets 27 mpg…the difference shrinks.

The difference in annual fuel use carrying the fictional max truck cargo load is 150 gallons. Multiply that by 40 years and the difference is 6,000 gallons. Multiply that by $3.83 and you get a dollar difference in constant today dollars of $22,980 for 40 years of fuel use.…to drive a bigger truck for essential work situations where some gas stations are far and few between and you could run out of gas with a truck that has a smaller fuel tank. And of course gas is nowhere near $3.83 these days, is it.

But Mr. Slick truck salesman says we should plan on that higher starting gas point coupled with 5.5% fuel inflation each year over those 40 years. That means instead of nearly $23K difference in fuel use over 40 years, Mr. Slick is trying to convince you that it will cost you about 3.5 times as much due to the inflation values he skewed.…some $80,430 of future dollars in extra gas over 40 years. Lookie, lookie says Mr. Slick. Oh BTW, he wants you to focus on the fuel use of the ENTIRE fully loaded truck always driven at max gross weight, while forgetting to mention the $5800 upfront price difference applies to just 68/179ths of the KC-X truck in TODAY’S non-inflated dollars.

How many folks would fall for that banana in a tailpipe. Yet Conklin says it to GI Joe with a straight face.

“LOL…AGAIN”

It’s still more efficient to guzzle 24% more fuel while delivering 30% more.

You can’t derive from the Conklin & de Decker “study” which aircraft would consume more fuel for both aircrafts operating at same payload.

According to several international airlines except Azerbaijan Airlines an A330 is more efficient than a B767. (I know that lately several B767 were “sold” as compensation for late 787 delivery.)

“Why not KC-757 or KC-737? Because neither would have a fuel capacity of even 100,000 lbs…“
Many tankers return to base during Operation Iraqi Freedom with no fuel offloaded. For these missions you can use smaller aircrafts. You don’t need such a big range for forward based tankers, do you?

Another thing to consider in any future analysis of alternatives and RFP priorities is the fuel and hour-on-C-117-airframes saved by using A330 in place of C-17 sorties.

Just as you consider the totality of both F-22s and F-35s when looking at fighter requirements, you should consider the balance of airlift using tanker aircraft vs. C-17s. Past underutilization of tankers for lift does not constrict us to that option in the future.

The A330 gets much greater fuel economy then a C-17 anc carries far more pallets. It also gets better fuel economy with a slightly aft CG so carrying both pallets to gain aft CG and fuel should always be considered on any ferry flight.

If you noted the last few days of airpower summaries, Mhalblaub, the fuel offloaded per sortie was closer to 70,000 lbs than the typical 50,000 lbs. Perhaps the USAF is learning to combine sorties to get more out of each aerial refueling flight. Just think how many flights they could combine with the bigger A330.

Cole,

Once again demonstrating the disingenuousness of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers.

Completely ignoring all the OTHER higher operating costs of a larger tanker or that the KC-30 would burn MORE fuel per hour EVEN WHEN DELIVERING THE SAME PAYLOAD AS A KC-767AT, or that we already have a large tanker that is SMALLER & LIGHTER than the KC-30 yet has 110,000 lbs GREATER fuel capacity (which could see a drastic fuel efficiency improvement) or that the VAST majority of the time we don’t even utilize the full capacity of the KC-135 much less the KC-767AT or KC-30 or that even IF we managed to DOUBLE the average fuel offload per sortie that the KC-767AT has the fuel offload capability to do so…

Also ignoring that NO justification has been made for including cargo capacity as a parameter in determining a TANKER (nobody doubts the utility of cargo capability) & that the KC-767AT can carry more cargo than a C-17 & that tankers fly MANY MANY MANY more TANKER sorties than cargo sorties & that KC-767AT can operate from airfields which the KC-30 can not…

AND ignoring that the requirement for fuel is MUCH more determined by the number of booms needed to refuel all the receivers in an effective/efficient manner than by the amount of fuel each tanker can carry…

MHalblaub,

NOBODY EVER SAID THAT THE A330-200/KC-30 BURNS 24% MORE FUEL PER HOUR AT ALL WEIGHTS! What has been said is that when flying similar commercial mission profiles, a A330-200 burns an AVERAGE of 24% (417 gal) more fuel per hour than a 767-200ER.

You CAN derive from common sense that an aircraft that has an operational empty weight of ~265,000 lbs that is 193′ 7″ long, with a 197′ 10″ wingspan will burn more fuel per hour than an aircraft that has an operational empty weight of ~185,000 lbs that is 159′ 2″ long, with a 156′ 1″ wingspan EVEN WHEN CARRYING THE SAME PAYLOAD. AND you can derive from common sense that since we don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135 MOST of the time (& even if we DOUBLED what has been the average over the last four conflicts the KC-767AT would be enough) that replacing the KC-135 with a tanker that is BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the KC-10 is the WRONG thing to do.

The A330-200 is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” when carrying many more passengers than the 767-200ER can carry but just as more tanker sorties require 100,000 lbs of offloaded fuel, more airline routes require 200 passengers. For any route that requires <180 3-class (or <225 2-class) passengers, the 767-200ER is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” than the A330-200.

Yes, most of the time even the full capacity of the KC-135 is not utilized/required yet you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker want people to believe that a tanker that is BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the LARGE KC-10 is the right choice to replace the KC-135…

Wouldn’t be great if the world was SO organized & predictable that the US could procure SEVEN different tankers, one with fuel capacity of 50,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 100,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 150,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 200,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 250,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 350,000 lbs in order to have just the right capacity tanker for most every mission? Sorry, not relistic. Maybe compromise & simplify for something closer to reality with FOUR, one with fuel capacity of 75,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 150,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 225,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs? Maybe get even CLOSER to reality & go for THREE, one with fuel capacity of 100,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 200,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs? Sorry, but only the THREE is even CLOSE to realistic. But the US currently has just TWO, one with fuel capacity of ~200,000 lbs (& we don’t use its full capacity most of the time) & one with fuel capacity of ~350,000 lbs.

“NOBODY EVER SAID THAT THE A330-200/KC-30 BURNS 24% MORE FUEL PER HOUR AT ALL WEIGHTS!”

Interesting to know that NOBODY is a synonym for Boeing.

“You CAN derive from common sense that …“
Especially you can’t do that. And common sense is in no way useful to determine such conclusions.

“For any route that requires <180 3-class (or <225 2-class) passengers, the 767-200ER is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” than the A330-200.“
You won’t find much passengers who like to fly on a 767–200 with such a configuration for a second time. I would use a A321 on some of such routes. The real equivalent to a A330-200 is a B767-300ER.

“BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the LARGE KC-10″
The A330 is about 10 ft longer and has a much bigger wingspan but is in no way heavier with its bigger cargo volume. At a range of 1,000 nm a KC-45 just provides about 40,000 lb less fuel than a KC-10. At 2,500 nm a KC-45 can provide more fuel than a KC-10.

“But the US currently has just TWO, one with fuel capacity of ~200,000 lbs (& we don’t use its full capacity most of the time) & one with fuel capacity of ~350,000 lbs.”

The US Air Force has 3 aircraft types. KC-10, KC-135R and KC-135E. US Marine Corps has KC-130 and Navy F/A-18 Hornet with a body system and KS-3A.

Now Air Force will introduce some day a KC-45. Later on there are the KC-Y and KC-Z programs.

“Sorry, but only the THREE is even CLOSE to realistic.“
Why? Because Air Force just have 3 types of heavy bombers? There are over 6 types of fighter aircraft and more than 10 types of cargo aircrafts. So what?

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

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