Comments on: France Wants New Tankers Too http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:54:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-8057 DensityDuck Mon, 11 May 2009 16:54:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-8057 Tanker: "Prefers the proven home team to Euro-trash?" Seriously? Using that logic we'd still be flying piston-engine props into combat. The first jet engines were British designs built under license."This whole thing has become so politically charged..."Yeah, and you know what? People like you are keeping it that way. Tanker: “Prefers the proven home team to Euro-trash?” Seriously? Using that logic we’d still be flying piston-engine props into combat. The first jet engines were British designs built under license.

“This whole thing has become so politically charged…”

Yeah, and you know what? People like you are keeping it that way.

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-8050 TankerPuke Mon, 11 May 2009 15:05:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-8050 Wow, the pfcem-bashers are really lining up. Given pfcem's minor mistakes with tanker delivery, I doubt he's either a BA employee or proposal team member. More likely a loyal American that...please forgive him...prefers his proven home team to Euro-trash. Howard corrected the delivery story correctly, as I know it at least, and also struck upon a key issue. Firstly, just about any aircraft can trail a hose and drogue. Consider the F/A-18 buddy store pod used routinely now to get jets back on the carriers. Turns a fighter into a tanker. No problem. However, a flying boom appears to be a much bigger kettle of fish. So instead of focusing on which airframer can mod an airliner into a tanker...consider what makes the tanker in question "a tanker" for USAF. It is the boom. BA has the combined history and experience with two highly successful boom designs from legacy Boeing and McDonnell Douglas tankers. These designs were then evolved into the Japan and Italy KC-767 boom, which have over 1000 contacts and tens of thousands of pounds of real jet fuel transferred to date, according to press releases. EADS...(remember, NG has NO tankers in service, in production, in flight test, sold to any nation...nada)... on the other hand continues to struggle to transfer a single liquid drop of fuel with their new boom. Not a single drop on any A330-based tanker. Also consider the development issues with our legacy tanker booms. It must be harder than it appears to make these things work. But BA has the track record and proven product flying while EADS does not and NG only knows what a boom looks like on glossy product cards. BA's boom is even "operational" now in Japan, having reached IOC in recent months. Now, as to tankers for our trusy French ally that denied overflight for our F-111s during Operation El Dorado Canyon where we lost a jet and brave crew, you may all recall the original discussion a few years back when they originally announced they were interested in new tankers. You may further recall they specifically limited bidders to those with European design and manufacture. Funny how quickly everyone forgot that. Let's just see how fairly THEY conduct their competition in the future and if BA gets as fair of a shot in that as EADS got in the USAF version. I guess BA will need to hire some phony French frontman like EADS did with NG to play that game. This whole thing has become so politically charged and has evolved into such an ACQ morass, the only semi-clean expeditious way out is a Dual Buy scenario. But Obama got his pit bull Pelosi to twist Murtha's arm until he cried "Uncle" and gave that fight up. So, here we are now...about to start KC-X over with Gates running the show. Oh boy. I'm going out to get some popcorn and a soda, because this is gonna be one hellova show. Wow, the pfcem-bashers are really lining up. Given pfcem’s minor mistakes with tanker delivery, I doubt he’s either a BA employee or proposal team member. More likely a loyal American that…please forgive him…prefers his proven home team to Euro-trash.
Howard corrected the delivery story correctly, as I know it at least, and also struck upon a key issue. Firstly, just about any aircraft can trail a hose and drogue. Consider the F/A-18 buddy store pod used routinely now to get jets back on the carriers. Turns a fighter into a tanker. No problem. However, a flying boom appears to be a much bigger kettle of fish. So instead of focusing on which airframer can mod an airliner into a tanker…consider what makes the tanker in question “a tanker” for USAF. It is the boom. BA has the combined history and experience with two highly successful boom designs from legacy Boeing and McDonnell Douglas tankers. These designs were then evolved into the Japan and Italy KC-767 boom, which have over 1000 contacts and tens of thousands of pounds of real jet fuel transferred to date, according to press releases. EADS…(remember, NG has NO tankers in service, in production, in flight test, sold to any nation…nada)… on the other hand continues to struggle to transfer a single liquid drop of fuel with their new boom. Not a single drop on any A330-based tanker. Also consider the development issues with our legacy tanker booms. It must be harder than it appears to make these things work. But BA has the track record and proven product flying while EADS does not and NG only knows what a boom looks like on glossy product cards. BA’s boom is even “operational” now in Japan, having reached IOC in recent months.
Now, as to tankers for our trusy French ally that denied overflight for our F-111s during Operation El Dorado Canyon where we lost a jet and brave crew, you may all recall the original discussion a few years back when they originally announced they were interested in new tankers. You may further recall they specifically limited bidders to those with European design and manufacture. Funny how quickly everyone forgot that. Let’s just see how fairly THEY conduct their competition in the future and if BA gets as fair of a shot in that as EADS got in the USAF version. I guess BA will need to hire some phony French frontman like EADS did with NG to play that game.
This whole thing has become so politically charged and has evolved into such an ACQ morass, the only semi-clean expeditious way out is a Dual Buy scenario. But Obama got his pit bull Pelosi to twist Murtha’s arm until he cried “Uncle” and gave that fight up. So, here we are now…about to start KC-X over with Gates running the show. Oh boy. I’m going out to get some popcorn and a soda, because this is gonna be one hellova show.

]]> By: BS_Busterhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7996 BS_Buster Fri, 08 May 2009 11:35:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7996 pfcem is a Boing guy alright. He is like a bad penny that just keeps showing up with the same trash talk over and over. But then, according to Boeing and pf's theory of low Boing risk because of their past KC-135 tanker experience, pf is probably one of the original KC-135 engineers, old as the hills and repeating the same sad Boing BS line over and over again. pfcem is a Boing guy alright. He is like a bad penny that just keeps showing up with the same trash talk over and over. But then, according to Boeing and pf’s theory of low Boing risk because of their past KC-135 tanker experience, pf is probably one of the original KC-135 engineers, old as the hills and repeating the same sad Boing BS line over and over again.

]]> By: Howardhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7873 Howard Tue, 05 May 2009 16:24:32 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7873 Acutally NOC has never delivered a tanker to anyone, EADS hasn't yet delivered an A330 based tanker to anyone. The Aussie tanker is still in EADS custody and in flight test in Spain, and is late. EADS however HAS delivered A310 based tankers to Germany and to Canada. No boom, only hose and drogue. EADS only has two booms, one on the A310 test bed, and one on the still in testing A330. Neither boom has been in actual service. The A330 has yet to actually do anything more than dry contacts. Acutally NOC has never delivered a tanker to anyone, EADS hasn’t yet delivered an A330 based tanker to anyone. The Aussie tanker is still in EADS custody and in flight test in Spain, and is late. EADS however HAS delivered A310 based tankers to Germany and to Canada. No boom, only hose and drogue. EADS only has two booms, one on the A310 test bed, and one on the still in testing A330. Neither boom has been in actual service. The A330 has yet to actually do anything more than dry contacts.

]]> By: hesshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7842 hess Mon, 04 May 2009 15:52:19 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7842 This guy must be on the boeing proposal team........ This guy must be on the boeing proposal team.….…

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7801 pfcem Sat, 02 May 2009 07:58:36 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7801 bob,There IS a problem with the NG/EADS tanker. It is too big & too heavy (bigger & heavier than ALL aircraft in US inventory except for the C-5 & a handful of 747-based aircraft) and even the significantly smaller & lighter Boeing proposal meets or exceed all key requirements.***LockMartSkunk,No. EADs has ONE tanker flying (which I have yet to see a report that it has actually passsed fuel in flight - it was SUPPOSED to have by now & one would think if it had it would be BIG news) & it is NOT THE SAME as the NG/EADS KC-30. If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days. Boeing has deliverd 5 tankers to two customers (all of which have passed fuel in flight).BOTH the NG/EADS & Boeing proposals for the KC-X are modified varients of their existing tankers.Because Boeing actually took the time & effort to propose a specific varient specifically for the KC-X requirements (as opposed to NG/EADS who threatened to pull out of the competition unless the criteria were altered to better suite their airframe which the USAF had already rejected because it did not meet its requirements) there is more structurally different between the KC-767AT & the KC-767s that Boeing has already delivered than the there is between the NG/EADS proposed KC-30 & the ONE KC-30B that has been delivered to Australia. BUT there is A LOT more to a tanker than the airframe structure...And Boeing has just recently proven with the P-8 Poseidon that taking diffierent structural components from different varients of a platform to create a new varient is well within its capability.***mel50,Boeing has deliverd FIVE tankers to TWO customers & all have passed fuel in flight. NG/EADS doesn't even have a US FINAL ASSEMBLY/systems integration facility for its European manufactured airframe. EADS has only delivered ONE tanker to ONE customer & it is still not clear if it has in fact passed fuel in flight.Read what EADS customers are saying about the cost, risk and delays they’re now & have been experiencing with EADS procudts...You have it backwards. The 'evaluators' (not the USAF) failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. The process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow Boeing to get the contract. bob,

There IS a problem with the NG/EADS tanker. It is too big & too heavy (bigger & heavier than ALL aircraft in US inventory except for the C-5 & a handful of 747-based aircraft) and even the significantly smaller & lighter Boeing proposal meets or exceed all key requirements.

***

LockMartSkunk,

No. EADs has ONE tanker flying (which I have yet to see a report that it has actually passsed fuel in flight — it was SUPPOSED to have by now & one would think if it had it would be BIG news) & it is NOT THE SAME as the NG/EADS KC-30. If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days. Boeing has deliverd 5 tankers to two customers (all of which have passed fuel in flight).

BOTH the NG/EADS & Boeing proposals for the KC-X are modified varients of their existing tankers.

Because Boeing actually took the time & effort to propose a specific varient specifically for the KC-X requirements (as opposed to NG/EADS who threatened to pull out of the competition unless the criteria were altered to better suite their airframe which the USAF had already rejected because it did not meet its requirements) there is more structurally different between the KC-767AT & the KC-767s that Boeing has already delivered than the there is between the NG/EADS proposed KC-30 & the ONE KC-30B that has been delivered to Australia. BUT there is A LOT more to a tanker than the airframe structure…And Boeing has just recently proven with the P-8 Poseidon that taking diffierent structural components from different varients of a platform to create a new varient is well within its capability.

***

mel50,

Boeing has deliverd FIVE tankers to TWO customers & all have passed fuel in flight. NG/EADS doesn’t even have a US FINAL ASSEMBLY/systems integration facility for its European manufactured airframe. EADS has only delivered ONE tanker to ONE customer & it is still not clear if it has in fact passed fuel in flight.

Read what EADS customers are saying about the cost, risk and delays they’re now & have been experiencing with EADS procudts…

You have it backwards. The ‘evaluators’ (not the USAF) failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. The process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow Boeing to get the contract.

]]> By: Aurorahttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7788 Aurora Fri, 01 May 2009 19:40:20 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7788 LockmartSkunk, please set the record straight. LockmartSkunk, please set the record straight.

]]> By: LockMartSkunkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7787 LockMartSkunk Fri, 01 May 2009 19:25:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7787 Aurora, you need to update yourself on the status of the actual tanker programs for NG and BA. Aurora, you need to update yourself on the status of the actual tanker programs for NG and BA.

]]> By: Aurorahttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7773 Aurora Fri, 01 May 2009 13:36:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7773 mel50, why are you singling out Boeing for criticism? As noted above the Australian MRTT has been delayed, for reasons unknown. The A400M may just be the most botched military aircraft transport program of all time. And even Sue Payton took a shot at Northrop Grumman for issues with Global Hawk on her way out. The A330 tanker has NOT yet transferred fuel; the KC-767 has. Isn't this the primary reason for this aircraft--or is it to move 463L pallets? (That's a rhetorical question by the way).Boeing has its problems, but lower risk for the airbus? I don't think so. mel50, why are you singling out Boeing for criticism? As noted above the Australian MRTT has been delayed, for reasons unknown. The A400M may just be the most botched military aircraft transport program of all time. And even Sue Payton took a shot at Northrop Grumman for issues with Global Hawk on her way out. The A330 tanker has NOT yet transferred fuel; the KC-767 has. Isn’t this the primary reason for this aircraft–or is it to move 463L pallets? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way).

Boeing has its problems, but lower risk for the airbus? I don’t think so.

]]> By: mel50http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7763 mel50 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:21:14 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7763 LockMartSkunk,It quickly filters to what you've said...BA would like us to buy into the idea that you can just take a production commercial airliner, mod the aircraft, and poof you have a capable tanker. But BA's own experience with Japan 767 AWACS, and current 737 Wedgetail and Peace Eagle programs tells a different story -- read what Australia and Turkey are saying about the cost, risk and delays they're now experiencing...BA is paying penalties for late deliveries. And bottom line, you can say what you want about the AQ process, but the evaluators saw right through this argument and voted for lower risk and higher capability. The flaw in the process is that the process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow a no answer by a very effective BA Washington machine. And the Air Force blinked. LockMartSkunk,

It quickly filters to what you’ve said…BA would like us to buy into the idea that you can just take a production commercial airliner, mod the aircraft, and poof you have a capable tanker. But BA’s own experience with Japan 767 AWACS, and current 737 Wedgetail and Peace Eagle programs tells a different story — read what Australia and Turkey are saying about the cost, risk and delays they’re now experiencing…BA is paying penalties for late deliveries. And bottom line, you can say what you want about the AQ process, but the evaluators saw right through this argument and voted for lower risk and higher capability. The flaw in the process is that the process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow a no answer by a very effective BA Washington machine. And the Air Force blinked.

]]> By: bobhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7758 bob Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:11:17 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7758 ^ i think you hit in on the head ^ i think you hit in on the head

]]> By: LockMartSkunkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7756 LockMartSkunk Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:02:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7756 pfcem,So here is what I take away from your explanation. NG/EADS has a tanker already flying and they would modify it for US purposes. BA is saying that they have the parts and can theoretically build it. As bad as we all know the contracting process to be I feel like this is trying buy a house. You got one real estate agent saying yea we got a house ready and we can put some new electronics on it and another real estate agent with an empty lot saying yea we can build it. pfcem,

So here is what I take away from your explanation. NG/EADS has a tanker already flying and they would modify it for US purposes. BA is saying that they have the parts and can theoretically build it. As bad as we all know the contracting process to be I feel like this is trying buy a house. You got one real estate agent saying yea we got a house ready and we can put some new electronics on it and another real estate agent with an empty lot saying yea we can build it.

]]> By: bobhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7753 bob Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:56:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7753 pfcem...lets face it... the whole thing regardig DOD procurement especially with the tankers is overly political... This whole shabang started with the lease deal w/boeing gone wrong... and the team that came in to take over for the AF unfairly bid the contract by not giving both companies the same specifications...So this whole things starts from scratch!Both tankers are capable... both will be improvements... This its like a camaro mustang forum... The AF in the end is going to have to decide whats right... Once they rebid the contract, both designs will undergo changes... and we will find out the winner...Theirs not a problem with either tanker... the procurment process on the other hand... is a disaster! pfcem…

lets face it… the whole thing regardig DOD procurement especially with the tankers is overly political… This whole shabang started with the lease deal w/boeing gone wrong… and the team that came in to take over for the AF unfairly bid the contract by not giving both companies the same specifications…So this whole things starts from scratch!

Both tankers are capable… both will be improvements… This its like a camaro mustang forum… The AF in the end is going to have to decide whats right… Once they rebid the contract, both designs will undergo changes… and we will find out the winner…

Theirs not a problem with either tanker… the procurment process on the other hand… is a disaster!

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7750 pfcem Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:29:45 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7750 LockMartSkunk,Real insight...The NG/EADS KC-30 is not the exact same as the Australialian KC-30B (of which there is currently only ONE airframe even close to operational) or the A330 MRTT the UK is leasing (funny how NG/EADS KC-30 supporters don't seem to have much of a problem with this) or the A330 MRTT France is making no bones about preferring (seems ok to NG/EADS KC-30 supporters for France to prefer a mostly French product but the US preferring a mostly US product is not ok). If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days...There is nothing radical about the KC-767AT. Every component of the airframe is currently FAA certified & flying on one or more 767 version, just not all together in one airframe. Boeing has proven over & over again that it is more than capable of putting together new varients of existing platforms. The P-8 Poseidon is made from parts of a number of different 737 variants as just the latest example. The KC-767AT's 6th generation boom is 'just' an improvement over the 5th generation boom on the FIVE delivered KC-767 (3 to Japan & 2 to Italy of orders of 4 each).And with the current 767 production rate being so low it would be EASY for the very next 767 airframe to begin construction to be a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & there is enough similarity between the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & all other 767-200/767-200ER/767-200F airframes to not even have to wait for a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe to begin SDD. LockMartSkunk,

Real insight…

The NG/EADS KC-30 is not the exact same as the Australialian KC-30B (of which there is currently only ONE airframe even close to operational) or the A330 MRTT the UK is leasing (funny how NG/EADS KC-30 supporters don’t seem to have much of a problem with this) or the A330 MRTT France is making no bones about preferring (seems ok to NG/EADS KC-30 supporters for France to prefer a mostly French product but the US preferring a mostly US product is not ok). If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days…

There is nothing radical about the KC-767AT. Every component of the airframe is currently FAA certified & flying on one or more 767 version, just not all together in one airframe. Boeing has proven over & over again that it is more than capable of putting together new varients of existing platforms. The P-8 Poseidon is made from parts of a number of different 737 variants as just the latest example. The KC-767AT’s 6th generation boom is ‘just’ an improvement over the 5th generation boom on the FIVE delivered KC-767 (3 to Japan & 2 to Italy of orders of 4 each).

And with the current 767 production rate being so low it would be EASY for the very next 767 airframe to begin construction to be a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & there is enough similarity between the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & all other 767–200/767-200ER/767-200F airframes to not even have to wait for a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe to begin SDD.

]]> By: hesshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7742 hess Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:07:59 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7742 I thought the french have aircraft that do not utalize a boom? I thought the french have aircraft that do not utalize a boom?

]]> By: LockMartSkunkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7738 LockMartSkunk Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:21:45 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7738 Yea. . .this would seem to indicate they are betting on a Northrop/EADS win here. Does Boeing even have a real product here? I keep hearing from Boeing folks that they swear they are going to win and the Northrop guys are saying that Boeing's product is just a design as hasn't even flown yet. Anyone have some real insight into this? Yea…this would seem to indicate they are betting on a Northrop/EADS win here. Does Boeing even have a real product here? I keep hearing from Boeing folks that they swear they are going to win and the Northrop guys are saying that Boeing’s product is just a design as hasn’t even flown yet. Anyone have some real insight into this?

]]> By: Brownshoehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7732 Brownshoe Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:54:02 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7732 Hhhmmm. No ulterior motives here I'm sure. Could it be perhaps that the reference to "complete interoperability" means that they prefer an EADS-based tanker? Hhhmmm. No ulterior motives here I’m sure. Could it be perhaps that the reference to “complete interoperability” means that they prefer an EADS-based tanker?

]]> By: Aurorahttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/#comment-7724 Aurora Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:02:11 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=6057#comment-7724 I wasn't aware of limitations on the French and most other NATO countries with respect to conducting combat operations. From what I've read its the Germans that are loathe to engage the enemy for fear of casualties. I wasn’t aware of limitations on the French and most other NATO countries with respect to conducting combat operations. From what I’ve read its the Germans that are loathe to engage the enemy for fear of casualties.

]]>